Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [Lords,]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

BRITISH PROPERTY, BELGIUM.

Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the value of the property belonging to British subjects in Belgium which was requisitioned or sequestrated by the German Government in August and September, 1914; and what payments, if any, have been made to the owners for the property so requisitioned or sequestrated?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I cannot yet state the value of the property referred to. The damage suffered by British property in Belgium, owing to the action of the German Government, is at present being assessed on the spot, and the claims will, after assessment, be submitted to the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action. No compensation has up to the present been paid.

BULGARIA.

Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Reparation Commission at present controls the entire assets of Bulgaria?

Sir JOHN BAIRD (for Mr. Hilton Young): Under Article 132 of the Treaty of Neuilly, a first charge is imposed on all the assets and revenues of Bulgaria in respect of the cost of reparation and other costs arising under the Treaty, subject to the rights created and securities assigned in. connection with pro-War Bulgarian Government loans (which are maintained in force without any modification), and subject also to such exceptions as the Inter-Allied Commission at Sofia may unanimously approve. The Inter-Allied Commission is empowered to assume actual control and management of Bulgarian revenues only in case of default by Bulgaria, and does not at present exercise such control.

DISARMAMENT, GERMANY.

Commander BELLAIRS: 49.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the exaggerated ideas as to the armaments now at the disposal of Germany, whether he can give the latest figures of the Commission of Control as to the airplanes, guns, machine-guns, and rifles destroyed; and how these compare with the full expectations of the Commission?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): I have been asked to answer this question. The latest report from the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control shows that
33,484 guns and barrels of all kinds have been surrendered, and 33,410 have been destroyed up to date: in addition, 6,051 guns under construction were destroyed by the Germans prior to control; the records have been checked by the Commission: 87,377 machine-guns have been surrendered and 87,351 have been destroyed up to date; 4,382,839 rifles and carbine; have been surrendered and 4,369,330 have been destroyed up to date.
The Commission consider that all important stocks or surplus war material in Germany have been surrendered for destruction, and that only a negligible number of guns, machine-guns and rifles may still be hidden by extremist parties. The Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control have accomplished far more than the members of the Commission themselves considered possible at the outset of their work.
The aeronautical disarmament of Germany was recognised as complete by the Allies on the 5th February last. On that date, 14,731 aeroplanes had been surrendered and 14,260 destroyed. The Aeronautical Commission of Control has since been withdrawn.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEAR EAST.

ATROCITIES.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position of the proposal to send representatives of the Great Powers to inquire into the alleged atrocities in Asia Minor; whether the Greeks and the Angora Turks, respectively, have consented or refused; and whether His Majesty's Government arc aware that serious outrages upon the subject races, and much loss of life, is still being reported from the territory under Kemalist control?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The French, Italian, and United States Governments have accepted in principle the proposals of His Majesty's Government, but certain conditions and modifications in the original proposals have been suggested, and are at present under discussion. Pending a decision on these points, no formal notification of the proposal to send these commissions has been made either to the Angora Assembly or to the Greek Government, but it is understood that the Greek Government agree to the despatch of a commission to Greek occupied territory in Asia Minor. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this long delay is costing human life?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes; I am bearing that very carefully in mind, and there has been no delay on the part of His Majesty's Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not extremely probable that the last Armenian will have been massacred before these details have been settled by the four Foreign Offices?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I greatly regret that there should be any delay whatever.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will His Majesty's Government press the other Governments concerned?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes; they are doing so.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Whose fault is the delay at present—the French Government's?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have nothing to add.

BRITISH CONTRACTS.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any diplomatic or other assistance has been rendered to the firm of Sir Robert McAlpine and Sons, Limited, in obtaining contracts for reconstruction work at the port of Piraeus, near Athens; if so, what was the nature of that assistance: and whether any negotiations are being similarly conducted in regard to contracts in those parts of Turkey now occupied by Greece?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Tenders were invited by the Greek Government in 1918 from three British groups, one of whom was Sir Robert McAlpine and Sons, Limited, for a contract to reconstruct the Piraeus harbour works. Subsequently a fourth British firm was invited to compete. His Majesty's Minister at Athens received instructions to give all British firms of good standing equal support. The assistance given was such as is usual in cases of British firms desiring to obtain contracts from foreign Governments. I have no information in regard to the last part of this question.

Mr. MALONE: Have any of these contracts been responsible for the British policy in supporting the Greek Imperialist aims?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is it not quite right and proper that British Ministers should support their nationals in obtaining concessions?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes; it is a regular part of the business of the Foreign Office.

ANGORA GOVERNMENT (NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. MALONE: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government intend to continue negotiations with the Turkish Government of Angora; and, if so, what is the delay?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: There have been no separate negotiations with the Angora Government, and there can be thus no question of their being continued. The actual nature of the negotiations regarding the Near East are those mentioned in the reply returned to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. A. Herbert) on the 22nd June.

PERSIA.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are intending to despatch British troops to Eastern Persia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government have absolutely no intention of despatching any troops to Persia.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

COASTGUARD SERVICE (STATUS).

Captain Viscount CURZON: 12.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any decision has as yet been arrived at with regard to the future status of the coastguard service?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 18.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if any decision has been arrived at with regard to the coastguard force, and can he make any statement to the House with regard to its future?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): The future status of the Coastguard Service is still under consideration by the Interdepartmental Committee on Coastguard. It is hoped that a decision may be reached shortly.

CANTEENS.

Viscount CURZON: 14.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes (a State-supported
trading organisation, which is the successor of the Navy and Army Canteen Board) are selling goods of every description at ordinary retail prices, less 8 per cent. rebate, but that the rations of the men, formerly issued free, are now supplied by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes at a profit; and that the profits of the wet canteens are alleged to be as high as 50 per cent. and those in the dry canteens 75 per cent.; and whether the Lords of the Admiralty have sanctioned a system of trading whereby the profits, made out of the men's rations and their spendings in the canteens, are made to counterbalance the losses, if any, due to trading in the shops of the institutes?

Mr. AMERY: As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with my Noble and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

My Noble and gallant Friend has, apparently, confused Navy canteen arrangements with those of the Army, and his inquiries are not applicable to Naval canteens. I would explain, however, that the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes is not financed from public funds, and in other respects is in the same position as the tenant canteen firms before the War. It is not, therefore, a State-supported trading organisation. The practice suggested in the first part of the question is certainly not followed by Naval canteens, which only supply foodstuffs, sports' gear, and other articles required by the sailor, the rate of rebate granted on the turnover of these being 10 per cent. in the case of shore establishments at which there are both beer and coffee bars, and 5 per cent. in the case of His Majesty's ships. None of the articles of the Navy standard ration are supplied by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes. I am not aware of the-percentage of profit obtained by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes on the various articles sold to the men, this being part of its business organisation as conducted by the board of management, but I understand that they are much less than the rates mentioned in the question. The present organisation of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes is in accordance with the recommendation of an Inter-departmental Committee, appointed to consider
the canteen requirements of the three Services, and in view of the foregoing remarks, the last part of the question does not arise in connection with Naval canteens.

BATTLE OF JUTLAND.

Commander BELLAIRS: 19.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when the. narrative and chart of the Battle of Jutland were sent to Lord Jellicoe; and whether his approval of publication will be telegraphed for?

Mr. AMERY: The narrative and charts were despatched on the 2nd June. The Admiralty do not wish to curtail any observations Lord Jellicoe may wish to make by asking for a telegraphic reply. Lord Jellicoe is aware of the interest displayed in this matter and may, I am sure, be relied on to forward his remarks as soon as possible.

BURNEY AIRSHIP SCHEME.

Mr. MALONE: 20.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if the Admiralty have approved the Burney airship scheme; and, if so, whether any conditions were imposed?

Mr. AMERY: The Burney Airship Scheme has been referred to the Committee of Imperial Defence for consideration, and I do not think that it would be proper for me to make any further statement on the matter at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

NAVAL RESERVISTS.

Viscount CURZON: 13.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many naval reservists are there resident in Southern Ireland; and have any, and, if so, what, arrangements been made with the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland to permit the departure of these men to their ships and units on an order for mobilisation or for training?

Mr. AMERY: The number of naval reservists resident in Southern Ireland is 1,261. The arrangements regarding their mobilisation and training are under consideration.

MURDERS, MACROOM.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further information as to the fate of the three officers and a soldier who were kidnapped at Macroom?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement which I made last night in the course of the Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

CABLE COMMUNICATION.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 55.
asked the Postmaster-General what arrangements were made to protect the cable communications between this country and Southern Ireland after it was decided to evacuate the country; whether the Irish end of all important cables is under British control and adequately guarded; and if he will say whether the necessary steps have been taken to repair the cable between Anglesey and Kingstown?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): The Irish ends of submarine cables between this country and Southern Ireland fall under the control of the Irish Provisional Government, but for the present any necessary repair work which could not be done from land would be undertaken by one of the Post Office cable ships. These cables have not been interfered with, any interruptions which have occurred having been on the connecting land lines in Ireland.

MILITARY LEGAL STAFF.

Mr. GWYNNE: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has been able to find employment for any, and, if so, how many, of the barristers or solicitors who formed the military legal staff in Ireland prior to the treaty, and who before; joining and on disbandment were promised prior claim to consideration in connection with any Government legal appointment?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): A special Committee was appointed to consider the best openings for the future employment of these-officers, and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the Report of this Committee. The Appointments Department
is making every possible effort to find these officers alternative employment, and their claims will also he considered in connection with any vacancies in the Government service where legal knowledge is required. Owing, however, to the large reductions which have been, and are continuing to be, effected in the staffs of Government Departments generally, it has not yet been possible to appoint any of the officers to other suitable posts under the Government.

Mr. GWYNNE: Does the hon. Gentleman hope soon to appoint some of them? Is he aware there are many cases of hardship?

Sir M. BARLOW: I believe there are cases which merit consideration, but I am afraid that I can at present add nothing to my answer.

Sir F. HALL: Will these gentlemen receive the same care and attention as the conscientious objectors who have been re-instated in Government employ?

Sir MAURICE DOCKRELL: Was the destruction of the Four Courts helpful to the legal profession in Ireland?

SELF-DETERMINATION LEAGUE.

Sir CYRIL COBB: 64.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has any information with regard to the number of branches of the Irish Self-Determination League in London and throughout the country; what does he estimate to be the number of adherents; whether the meetings are open to the public; whether his officers have been able to obtain access to the meetings, and, if so, what is the nature of the propaganda; and if any of the leaders have been arrested during the recent police raids?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I am informed that in March last the number of branches, large and small, of this league in England and Wales was about 200, 32 of them being London branches, but that since then their number and the membership, which was about 18,000, have considerably decreased. The meetings are usually open to the public. The opinions of prominent members of the organisation in regard to the Treaty differ, and the propaganda
of the league has therefore assumed a restricted character, and is not necessarily objectionable. Some of the men detained after the recent police raids are known to be members of the league.

FIGHTING IN DUBLIN.

Colonel GRETT0N: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any news with reference to Southern Ireland that he can give to the House?

Mr. CHURCHILL: According to the latest information which has reached me, the Hammam Hotel and other buildings in Sackville Street were in flames at midday. A white flag was displayed, and the fire brigade approached to deal with the flames. Suddenly, however, the flag was withdrawn, and fire was re-opened by the irregulars. One fireman was wounded, and the action was then resumed on both sides. At 2.45 the attack was still proceeding. The whereabouts of De Valera are still unknown, and it is uncertain whether he is within the cordon of the Irish national troops or whether he has deserted his comrades and escaped. Public opinion in Dublin is steadily supporting the Provisional Government.

Colonel GRETTON: Ha? the right hon. Gentleman any news about Southern Ireland except from Dublin?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no news.

Mr. MILLS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, apart from the Press report, there is any confirmation of the fact that Mr. de Valera is engaged in any of the fighting?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Oh. yes, I think so; that is my information.

BOVISAND PIER, PLYMOUTH (BOAT LICENCES)

Mr. FOOT: 15.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware of the conditions as to rent and otherwise which the dockyard authorities seek to impose on licensed boatmen in landing passengers at Bovisand Pier, in Plymouth Sound; that these proposed conditions will be detrimental to the boatmen in earning their livelihood and will
restrict the enjoyment of Bovisand Beach by the people of Plymouth; and whether he will cause the proposed conditions to be modified?

Mr. AMERY: It is only equitable that boatmen and others who use this Admiralty pier for commercial profit should make some payment for the facilities afforded. The terms have not been finally settled, but the hon. Member may rest assured that they will not be unreasonable.

Mr. FOOT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the charge being made at present is £5, which is a very serious burden on small boatmen, who are seeking simply to carry on a boating trade which did exist before the War and before the Admiralty took the land?

Mr. AMERY: I understand that the charge of £5 is the annual fee for motor boats, which carry a very considerable number of passengers, and that it would work out at about ½d. per passenger.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

J. G. S. HOLBROOK, DERBY.

Mr. C. WHITE: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will inquire into the circumstances of the case of J. G. S. Holbrook, of I, Richmond Terrace, Pear Tree Road, Derby, who was employed at the Rolls-Royce Works, Derby, until November, 1920, when he was sent to work as a labourer by the Exchange constructing drains, etc., from February to May, 1921, his card being stamped by himself during that period, but which the Derby Employment Exchange refuse to allow him to deposit, as a consequence of which he is refused employment on the relief schemes and has been advised by the manager of the Exchange to apply for a refund of his insurance contributions, which have not yet been paid to him; and whether he will take such action as will ensure justice being done in this case?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am having inquiries made into the case of the workman referred to, and I will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

YARN SPINNING.

Captain W. BENN: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons unemployed in the yarn spinning industry?

Sir M. BARLOW: In the statistics of unemployment kept by the Department yarn spinners are not distinguished from other branches of the textile trades. I may say, however, that on 22nd May there were 51,484 persons in the cotton trade registered as wholly unemployed at Employment Exchanges in Great Britain and 15,335 persons in the woollen and worsted trade; in addition, there were 17,965 cotton trade workers and 2,964 woollen and worsted trade workers registered as on short time.

Captain BENN: Has the hon. Gentleman had his attention directed to an authoritative statement that 2,300 people would be thrown out of work were the Order to be made which is now before the House?

Sir M. BARLOW: No; I have received no information of that.

Captain BENN: Is the hon. Gentleman receiving a deputation this afternoon on the subject?

Sir M. BARLOW: Not that I am aware.

PROSECUTIONS.

Mr. GILBERT: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his Department prosecutes persons who receive unemployment pay under false pretences: and, if so, can he state the number of prosecutions and convictions obtained during the last 12 months?

Sir M. BARLOW: Yes, Sir. During the 12 months ended 30th June, 1922, 1,612 prosecutions were instituted in Great Britain, and convictions were obtained in 1,484 cases.

RELIEF GRANTS.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 29.
asked the Minister of Health the present rate of annual expenditure, based on the latest returns, of money spent in the way of public assistance from all sources for the relief of distress caused by unemployment and for which no useful work is required in return?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (for Sir A. Mond): The expenditure of boards of guardians on the outdoor relief of unemployed persons and their dependants during the four weeks ended 27th May last was £983,090, but my right hon. Friend is unable to say to what
extent this money was paid to persons from whom no useful work is required. Assuming the same rate of expenditure to continue throughout the year, the total annual expenditure would be £12,780,170. My right hon. Friend must refer the hon. Member to the Minister of Labour for information as to the expenditure on unemployment benefit.

Mr. THOMSON: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Health whether, instead of spending £12,000,000 for doing nothing, he will influence the Minister of Labour to allow grants to be made from the Unemployment Fund for the building of houses, so that we might get productive work?

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. RENDALL: 31.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has now had replies to his Circular No. 298 to boards of guardians; if he can give the House figures showing the amounts spent by hoards of guardians in relieving unemployed persons for the 13 weeks ending 1st July; and, if not, when he expects to be in a position to furnish such Return?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The replies to the circular are being received, and my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to furnish a complete Return at the end of this month.

EXCEPTIONAL DISTRESS.

Major KELLEY: 36.
asked the Minister of Health what are the respective percentages of the inhabitants now in receipt of Poor Law assistance in Rother-ham, Sheffield, Bournemouth, and Bath; and whether he will consider the establishment of a common fund or national pool for the relief of exceptional distress?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): The relevant percentages for the Poor Law Unions comprising the towns referred to are: Rotherham Union 5.8; Sheffield Union 18.7; Ecclesall Bierlow Union 10.0; Christchurch Union 1.8; and Bath Union 3.2. As regards the last part of the question, I can only refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough on the 28th June, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. T. THOMSON: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to say
what the Government can do in the way of equalising the rates in the provinces the same as he has done in London"

Sir A. MOND: I have nothing to add to the statement which I have already made on the question.

BENEFIT.

Major KELLEY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now announce any decision concerning the gap of five weeks in unemployment insurance benefit which he promised to consider when he received, on 20th June, a deputation from necessitous areas?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday that he hoped to be in a position to make an announcement on this subject early next week.

DOMESTIC SERVICE.

Mr. HURD: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour why unemployment benefit is still paid to 30,000 women in London, and to thousands of girls over school age, when for most of them domestic service is immediately available in good homes at good wages; and whether he will take steps to remedy this?

Sir M. BARLOW: The figure of 30,000 women to which my hon. Friend refers is not the number drawing benefit, but the number registered as wholly unemployed on 29th May, as he will see by referring to the answer given on 28th June. The number of women actually drawing benefit in the Greater London area on 19th June is estimated at about 14,000. In addition, there were about 7,600 whose benefit was temporarily suspended owing to the "gap." The number of girls drawing benefit at the same date was about 800, and in addition there were 140 on the "gap." As has been stated in reply to a number of questions during this Session, applicants who are suitable for and refuse domestic service would not be granted unemployment benefit. If my hon. Friend wishes I will send him a list of the occupations of the women unemployed and drawing benefit.

Mr. HURD: Seeing that the abuse of the unemployment benefit being applied to domestic servants is causing misery in thousands of homes in different parts of the country, will the hon. Gentleman
invite the Select Committee to inquire into the mischief, and see how it can be rectified?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am afraid I cannot accept the term "abuse." My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I are examining this matter, and give it close attention daily. If my hon. Friend will come to the Ministry, I think I can put before him figures which will relieve his mind on the subject.

Mr. HURD: Will the hon. Gentleman go into the thousands of homes, and see the position for himself?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

CONDEMNED HOUSES (OCCUPATION).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 30.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses in the United Kingdom which have been condemned by local authorities or their medical officers of health as unfit for human habitation and still remain occupied, and the population of the areas covered by such reports?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Annual Reports for 1920 of medical officers of health for 1,500 local authorities showed that out of 1,085,000 houses inspected during the year 24,210 were reported as unfit. Information as to the number of persons inhabiting these houses is not available.

COTTAGE PROPERTY (LOANS).

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 35.
asked the Minister of Health what proportion in the value of cottage property erected by public utility societies can now be borrowed from Government sources; and whether his attention has been called to the great advantages which would result from making that proportion as large as is consistent with security against loss of public money?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In cases where the scheme of a public utility society is approved by my right hon. Friend and ranks for subsidy, the Public Works Loan Board have power at present to advance money up to 75 per cent. of the cost of the scheme as approved. For schemes not under subsidy the proportion is two-thirds; that being as much as in the experience obtained can safely be advanced on the security.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that very much more than that is advanced in foreign countries on this security?

Sir A. MOND: If the hon. Member can give me any information on that subject, I shall be much obliged.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

HOSPITAL TREATMENT (FOOD).

Mr. AMMON: 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether a confidential circular has been issued from the Ministry of Health withdrawing the allowance for extra food for ex-service men under treatment, in hospitals and other similar places, for consumption; and, if so, what is the reason for the order?

Sir A. MOND: The answer is in the negative. I am not aware that it has ever been the practice to provide extra food for ex-service patients in approved institutions for the treatment of tuberculosis, and I have at no time authorised or recommended any such practice. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a circular issued by my Department to local authorities on the 17th January last which contains general advice as to the feeding of patients at tuberculosis institutions.

Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the local War Pensions Committees were empowered by Warrant to give the extra allowance for food in the case of the ex-service men suffering from tuberculosis and in institutions—does he not know that?

Sir A. MOND: That is not in the question. The question I was asked whether I have withdrawn any allowance.

Mr. AMMON: Is not this allowance made by the local War Pensions Committee to these institutions, and the circular to which reference has been made is being interpreted that they are not now to have the benefit of this?

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Is it not the circular that has been issued by the Pensions Minister that has led to the complication to which the hon. Gentleman refers?

Sir A. MOND: That may be so.

Mr. HOGGE: In view of the importance of this matter will my right hon. Friend make further inquiries as to whether this allowance has ceased to exist, and whether or not he administered it by arrangement?

Sir A. MOND: Certainly, I will go into it.

LAND SETTLEMENT (RENTS).

Mr. WALTER HALLS: 52.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the rents and consequent heavy rates being paid by ex-service land settlers, he will take steps to secure a permanent reduction of rents or direct the Small Holdings Committees to make such reductions?

Major BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply. Pending the stabilising of agricultural conditions, the cases of ex-service smallholders who suffered hardship owing to the drought and other exceptional circumstances last year, have been dealt with by abatement of rent. Where, however, exceptional circumstances demand it, I should be prepared to consider proposals by Small Holdings Committees for permanent reductions of rents as from Michaelmas next, provided that the reduced rent is not less than the best which could reasonably be obtained for the holding in the open market.

CATTLE DISEASE.

Mr. WILLIAM SHAW: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture in what years, if any, since 1st January, 1910, the herds of the United Kingdom have been completely free from all of the scheduled diseases?

Major BARNSTON (for Sir A. Boscawen): I have been asked to reply. In no year since the 1st January, 1910, has the United Kingdom been completely free from all diseases scheduled under the Diseases of Animals Acts.

HONOURS LIST.

Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: 45.
asked the Prime Minister which is the Departmental list that deals with the names of foreigners that are to be submitted for honours?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Foreign Office submits recommendations in regard to persons other than those of British nationality.

Mr. HERBERT: Did not the Foreign Office recommend the highest possible honour for a foreign millionaire?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Obviously, I could not answer that question without knowing the person whom my hon. Friend has in mind, and without sufficient notice to consult the authorities.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to put a question by way of a supplementary that has several times been refused

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he can now give a definite date for the Debate on the Motion standing in the names of 266 Members in regard to the submission of names to His Majesty for honours?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government had hoped to give a day next week for the discussion of this Motion, but, owing to the continued indisposition of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House (Mr. Chamberlain), who desires to be in his place on that occasion, I am afraid that it will not be possible to fix a date earlier than Monday, 17th July, for this Debate.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is not the Prime Minister the sole person responsible for the official submission of lists of honours, and, if that is the case, why is it necessary that the Lord Privy Seal should be here?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Lord Privy Seal particularly desires to be present and to take part in the general statement of the Government case, and I think that, considering that only a delay of less than 10 days is involved, it would be quite a departure from the usual consideration which the House shows to Members, to object to deferring the Debate until my right hon. Friend can be in his place to take part in it.

Sir D. MACLEAN: No one would wish to do anything which would at all inconvenience the Leader of the House, whose continued absence we all most deeply regret; but may we take it that on Monday week, the 17th, the Debate will take place whether the Leader of the House
is able to be here or not, and is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of public interest in this matter, and that a large number of Members desire its immediate discussion?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. The Government would have desired that the Debate should take place next Monday, and that, from many points of view, would have been more convenient to them; but we hope that the Leader of the House will be in his place on the Monday following, and, therefore, we have asked the House to agree to the Debate being put off till then, In the event of the Leader of the House not being able to be present on that day, I agree that we shall then have to go forward with the Debate, in spite of the disadvantage of his absence.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we be certain that the Prime Minister will be in his place on the 17th?

Mr. CHUCHILL: I am certain that, if it rest with the Prime Minister, he will be the first person to wish to be present.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

WAGES AGREEMENT.

Major KELLEY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of under-em-ployment and unrest in the coalfields, and the approaching expiration of the agreement between miners and owners, he will consider the inviting of representatives of both sides to a conference?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is already in existence a Joint National Board representing the owners and the workpeople in the coal mining industry, which will provide a ready means for the two parties to review the present wages agreement if notice is given to determine it, and I hope that it will be unnecessary for the Government to intervene in the matter.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in several areas where the miners are working all the time available, they have to apply to the guardians to help them to live?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have seen, with concern, references to this state of affairs which have appeared recently in a great many newspapers.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Prime Minister anything that will relieve this state of affairs? Is it not bound to cause unrest?

PRICES.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 62.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, seeing that the coal merchants of London have reduced the price by 9s. per ton, what reduction has been secured by the said merchants from the colliery companies who supply them; the date on which this reduced contract was entered into; and the names of the colliery companies concerned?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I have already given to the House all the information in my possession on this subject, and am not in a position to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member when he asked me this question on Monday last.

KURDISTAN (MURDER OF BRITISH OFFICERS).

Mr. HANNON: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any particulars regarding the murder of British officers in Kurdistan; and whether he will explain the exact responsibility of His Majesty's Government in these regions?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have received no further particulars regarding the murder of the officers referred to. As I have already informed the House, it was due to an act of individual treachery on the part of a Kurdish chief. I am fully alive to the necessity of ensuring by every possible means that officers employed in the responsible duty of representing His Majesty's Government in these wild regions should be adequately protected and I am in communication with the High Commission on the whole subject. With regard to the second part of the question, His Majesty's Government have accepted a mandate for Mesopotamia, of which the district known as Southern Kurdistan is an integral part. The acceptance of the mandate carries with it the responsibility for the preservation of order in the district. This is being accomplished now, as it has been for the past four or five years, by means of a loose political control exercised through the British political
officers over the Kurdish leaders. It has never been our policy to force the Kurds under the rule of King Feisal's government in Iraq, though it is confidently anticipated that as soon as stability is made possible by the conclusion of peace with Turkey the Arabs and Kurds will, in their own interests, come to some arrangement satisfactory to both parties. Meanwhile it would be too much to hope that occasional acts of lawlessness and treachery should not occur. In the suppression of these acts and in the punishment of offenders, British-officered levies, supported by aircraft, are being employed, and casualties must occasionally be faced. Combined punitive operations are now taking place, and the garrison of Kirkuk has been temporarily reinforced in order that the levies may be free to search out and punish the murderers.

Mr. HANNON: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the name of the second officer murdered?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not accurately charged my memory, but I think the name of the one was Bond, and of the other Makant.

Mr. HANNON: I thought that was the second.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the answer refer to the murders of 1st June and the 1st January last?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I am dealing more particularly with the last two murders.

BRITISH GUIANA.

Mr. HANNON: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why it is essential for the success of the present financial negotiations for the development of British Guiana that control of the finances of this important colony should be transferred to the Colonial Office; and whether he has given full consideration to the local opposition to this step?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Edward Wood): The policy of the Colonial Office on the subject is explained in some detail on pages 87 and 88 of the report upon my
visit to the West Indies and British Guiana which has been recently presented to Parliament (Cmd. 1670). and to which I would refer my hon. Friend.

Mr. HANNON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a British Delegation is at present in British Guiana with the object of encouraging development in that colony, and have not differences of opinion in the past prevented very large schemes of development taking place, and will he see if any arrangement can be made to reconcile local opinion and the policy of the Colonial Office?

Mr. STEWART: Would it not be possible to localise the present antiquated system of financial control to Georgetown, its immediate neighbourhood, and work the hinterland entirely under Colonial Office control?

Mr. WOOD: To the last hon. Gentleman I would say that this is a very difficult and broad question of policy which I must excuse myself replying about now. As regards the first question, I am aware that there is a British deputation at present in British Guiana, but I think it is more prudent to await the result of that deputation, whatever it may be, before making any statement.

Mr. HANNON: Could not the hon. Gentleman give some encouraging words to these gentlemen, in order to enable them to carry on their negotiations?

Mr. WOOD: That was the object of such observations as I made yesterday in the Debate—to offer encouragement in these matters.

BRITISH WEST AFRICA (EXPORT DUTIES).

Mr. HANNON: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the serious effect produced on the trade of British West Africa by the present export duties; and whether there is any prospect of their removal in the near future?

Mr. WOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to my observations on this subject in the course of yesterday's Debate.

CANADIAN CATTLE EMBARGO.

Captain W. BENN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister when it is intended that the
Debate on the Canadian cattle embargo should take place: and what is the policy of the Cabinet on this subject?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sorry that it will not be possible to take this discussion next week as was intended owing to the fact that so many Members from Northern Ireland cannot be present. It is hoped, however, that it will be possible to announce a date next week. As regards the last part of the question the attitude of the Government to this subject has already been defined in reply to previous questions.

Captain BENN: Is the policy of the Government to carry out whatever mandate is given by the House of Commons when the discussion does take place?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sure that I should be very ill-advised if I were to add anything to the declarations which have been made from this bench as to the policy of the Government.

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that declarations have been made with emphasis on both sides of this question by Cabinet Ministers?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, and statements have also been made as to what are the relations of those declarations to the policy of the Government.

Mr. W. SHAW: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give a definite date for the discussion next week?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. It is however hoped that a definite date may be given next week.

Mr. SHAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman not give us some definite understanding on this question, because it has been repeatedly put off?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It would be a great mistake to fix the date at this stage, because it necessarily depends on the progress of business.

Captain BENN: Is not the effect of postponing the discussion to rob us of the time to give it legislative effect?

WASHINGTON TREATIES.

Mr. KENNEDY: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has yet fixed a date for the ratification of the Treaties negotiated at the Washington Conference or a date for the introduction of the Bill to enable the Government to carry out their obligations under the Treaties; whether the House will be given an opportunity of discussing the Treaties prior to ratification; whether the House will be given an opportunity before ratification of discussing the unfulfilled declaration of Japan respecting her military occupation of Russian territory; and whether, before either ratification or the introduction of the Bill, friendly representations will be made to Japan to carry out completely the pledges not only respecting the mainland of Siberia but also Russian Sakhalin?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As regards the first two parts of the question, it is hoped to take the Bill which has come down from another place on Friday or Monday next. In this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the 22nd May last. With reference to the third part of the question, the Japanese Government has given an official assurance that they will evacuate the Maritime Province by the end of October. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. 0RMSBY-G0RE: Is it not a fact that Sakhalin was taken by the Russians from the Japanese, and was formerly Japanese territory?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I cannot answer that question without notice.

DEFENCE FORCES (CO-ORDINATION).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if the Interim Reports of the Committee appointed by the Government for the amalgamation or coordination of certain services common to the Navy, Army, and Air Force will be published soon after their respective submission to the Cabinet; and whether any such publication may be expected this year?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not customary to publish the Reports of Cabinet Committees, which are necessarily of a confidential character, but I cannot give any definite answer to this question until the Committee has made its Report. It may prove to be exceptionally suitable for publication.

TELEPHONE DIRECTORY, MANCHESTER.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: 54.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, although Oldham and Rochdale are included in the revised edition of the Manchester Telephone Directory, places nearer to Manchester, such as Bolton and Bury, are excluded; and whether the next edition can be revised to include all areas within at least 20 miles of Manchester?

Mr. PEASE: Oldham and Rochdale have for several years past been included in the Manchester sectional telephone directory, while Bolton and Bury are included in the Mid-Lancashire directory. The only alteration in the present edition is the arrangement of the subcribers' names in one alphabetical group. To include all places within 20 miles of Manchester in the next issue of the Manchester Directory would unduly increase the size of the book, and would also involve the inclusion of many places more proper to the directories for Liverpool, Blackburn and other large centres.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of a smaller radius, in view of the fact that the present areas have no relation whatever to the commercial needs of the district?

Mr. PEASE: It is very difficult to please everybody with regard to this question, but I will consider what my hon. and gallant Friend has said.

SCHOOL TEACHERS.

Sir ROBERT CLOUGH: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many local education authorities have adopted the Burnham Scale I, how many have adopted Scale II, how many have adopted Scale III, and how many have adopted Scale IV for teachers' salaries
in public elementary schools; and how many local education authorities have adopted none of the Burnham Scales?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): Of the 317 local education authorities in England and Wales,

38 are paying their teachers on the Provisional Minimum Scale;
14 on Standard Scale I;
68 on Standard Scale II;
167 on Standard Scale III;
24 on Standard Scale IV; and
5 on scales which arc not Burnham Scales;
1 authority is paying some of its teachers on Standard Scale II and others on Standard Scale III.

Mr. R. DAVIES: 57.
asked the Pre sident of the Board of Education whether any suggestions or instructions, verbal or printed, have been issued by the Board of Education urging those responsible for the training of teachers to gradually reduce the number of persons entering the teaching profession?

Mr. FISHER: No general suggestions or instructions of the kind referred to have been issued by the Board. The Board have, however, found it necessary, in one or two cases recently, to warn the responsible authorities that candidates must not be admitted to training institutions in excess of the accommodation recognised by the Board, which, since the War, has in many cases been considerably exceeded.

PENSION (DURHAM LIGHT INFANTRY, B. TYMAN).

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 58.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. B. Tyman, of 16, Hilda Terrace, Stanley, County Durham, late Durham Light Infantry, Identity No. 2/M.T./653; whether he is aware that this man was awarded in March last a pension of 20s. plus 8s. 9d. for his wife and child, and that, in spite of all his efforts, he has never been able to obtain any payment in respect of the child; whether payment on account of himself and his wife has now also been stopped, and for what reason; and whether he is aware that
this man has been out of work since 4th January and is consequently in great-need?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): Owing to a misunderstanding, which I much regret, the man has been receiving only 25s., instead of the 28s. 9d. a week to which he is entitled, but immediate steps have been taken for payment to be made at the latter rate, together with all arrears due.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. And gallant Gentleman say why this man's repeated applications for the extra money have received no attention, and instead of the additional money being paid, his own pay has been stopped?

Major TRYON: The authority for the payment of the pension has never been stopped.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But the money has been stopped.

Major TRYON: There is a sum paid in substitution. I have inquired into the matter, and I understand that the full pay and arrears will be paid up this week. I cannot give full particulars, because this case is in the Northern Region and we have not yet received all the papers.

GRETNA FACTORY (DISPOSAL).

Mr. W. SHAW: 60.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to a memorandum with regard to the disposal of Gretna factory circulated to Members by the Annan Town Council, in particular to the statement that a syndicate composed of men of high repute and substance was prepared to launch out a large sum upon the acquisition of the property; and, if so, whether he intends to take any official action in the matter?

Sir J. BAIRD: My attention has been drawn to the memorandum in question, and I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT correspondence rising therefrom between the Chairman of the Disposal and Liquidation Commission and the Annan Town Council.

Following is the correspondence referred to:

Copy.

Disposal and Liquidation Commission.

Caxton House West, S.W.I.

25th May, 1922.

DEAR SIR,

My attention has been called to your council's memorandum to Members of Parliament, dated the 15th instant, regarding Gretna factory. The statement in that memorandum, that the Government has modified its position, or changed its policy, has no foundation in fact. That statement has been publicly contradicted already.

The position is that the Government is now, and always has been, anxious to sell Gretna as a whole, but the syndicate, to which your memorandum so frequently refers, has never made any offer whatever and to refer to "negotiations" being brought to a successful issue is, therefore, very misleading.

In arriving at the value of Gretna as a whole, every reasonable allowance has been made, and it is inaccurate to suggest that the scrap value will not pay for restoration. Moreover, in making the suggestion, your council are, in fact, depreciating public property.

The value which has been placed upon the estate has not been disclosed, and it is. therefore, a little difficult to understand how anyone can arrive at the conclusion that such value is too high.

If your council have the knowledge of the syndicate which your memorandum appears to imply, I would suggest that you inform them that I shall only be too happy to discuss the subject of sale with responsible people who are prepared to negotiate, but there must be no delay.

Yours faithfully,

(Signed) HOWARD FRANK.

The Town Clerk,

Annan, N.B.

Copy.

Disposal and Liquidation Commission,

Caxton House West, S.W.I.

7th June, 1922.

DEAR SIR,

I have to thank you for your telegram of the 2nd instant and for your letter confirming same.

I note that your Town Council will meet within the nest 10 days. I must confess, having regard to the terms of the letter which was addressed to Members of Parliament, that I thought this matter was regarded by your Town Council as sufficiently urgent to justify a special meeting.

I am very anxious to receive the offer for the whole of Gretna, but, as I have already explained, the Commission is unable to wait indefinitely. You will remember the property has been advertised for disposal as a whole for quite nine months, and up to the present time those of whom you speak in your letter have not made any definite proposal whatever.

If it will facilitate matters, I should be very happy to see you, or a responsible member of the syndicate, either this week or early next week.

Yours faithfully,

(Signed) HOWARD FRANK.

The Town Clerk,

Annan, N.B.

Copy.

Town Hall,

Annan, N.B.

3th June, 1922.

Gretna Factory.

DEAR SIR,

Referring to our correspondence I have now submitted your letters of the 25th May and 7th instant to a meeting of the Town Council of Annan and have received instructions to reply thereto.

Without going further into a discussion of questions that may very well be set aside for the time being as of a more or less controversial nature, and as to which the council may be moved to make such representation as they deem necessary from time to time, the council desire me to say that in what they have done they have been actuated by a desire to see removed any obstacle that seemed to prevent an agreement between the Disposal Board and the proposed purchasers. The council have reason to believe that the Disposal Board were, in September and December of last year, in correspondence with a firm on behalf of the syndicate referred to, and the council had hoped that a resumption of the negotiations might have resulted in something satisfactory to the county and district. They ask me to express the hope that something may yet be done.

Yours faithfully,

(Signed) MURRAY LITTLE.

Sir Howard Frank,

Caxton House.

GREAT WAR (OFFICIAL HISTORIES).

Sir F. HALL: 61.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what expenditure has been incurred up to the present in connection with the preparation of official histories in connection with the Great War; and if he will state what further expenditure will be required to complete the work?

Sir J. BAIRD: The total expenditure to 31st March last was £42,265. Two of the histories are approaching completion, but it is not possible at present to state the total expenditure required to complete the series.

Sir F. HALL: What additional amount is required to complete these histories, and when will they be issued?

Sir J. BAIRD: We cannot pay this money without the sanction of the House. It must be done in the Votes, and I cannot give my hon. and gallant Friend any further information at the moment.

G. L. BEVAN (EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS).

Sir F. HALL: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to obtain the extradition from Austria of Mr. G. L. Bevan; and whether, in view of the widespread distress resulting from the operations with which he was associated, all possible measures will be followed to secure his return to this country.

Mr. SHORTT: The usual procedure has been followed and every effort is being made to secure Mr. Bevan's return at the earliest possible date. Some delay is inevitable because the Act of 1870 precludes any prisoner extradited from a foreign country from being tried in this country for any offence committed before his surrender except such as may be proved by the facts on which his surrender was granted. It is therefore obviously undesirable that Bevan's extradition from Austria should be effected till the Austrian Government has been put in possession of evidence relating to all the charges on which it is desired to try him in this country and care is necessary in selecting and formulating such charges, but it is hoped that the evidence will be completed in the course of this week.

Sir F. HALL: May we assume that there will be no extraordinary difficulty placed in the way by the Austrian authorities?

Mr. SHORTT: I have no reason to suppose that the Austrian authorities will throw any difficulties in the way.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH OFFICE.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to allegations to the effect that, although the Irish Office has no concern with the affairs of the Free State, it has now a larger and more expensive staff
than at any other period: and, if so, has he any statement to make on the subject?

Sir J. BAIRD: Yes, Sir. My attention has been drawn to an article recently published in a newspaper to the effect stated in the question. When the Chief Secretary's office and numerous other Departments of the Imperial Government were in existence in Dublin, it was not necessary that the staff of the Irish Office in London should consist of more than the Parliamentary draftsman, a chief clerk, and the necessary typists. Now that nearly all the Imperial Government Departments in Ireland outside the six Northern counties have disappeared and the work in connection with Imperial interests in Ireland falls to be administered from London under the direction of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Chief Secretary, it is obvious that the staff of the Irish Office must be increased. As an example of the necessity for an increase in the staff of the Irish Office in London, I may point out that prior to the transfer of administration from Dublin to London the Irish Office had no financial responsibility, whereas they are now accountable for more than nine millions of public money during the current financial year.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that the Secretary of State for the Colonies or the Chief Secretary for Ireland is responsible to the House for these financial and taxing matters?

Sir J. BAIRD: There are such matters as the Royal Irish Constabulary, the Land Commission, the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland and the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Compensation Fund, involving a very large amount of money, and the work in connection with them has to be transacted at the Irish Office.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: With whom should we communicate in regard, say, to the Land Commission—the Secretary for the Colonies or the Chief Secretary?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Obviously, the communication, as previously, should be addressed to the Department concerned. I am not equipped with any staff at all to handle these Irish matters except two
or three gentlemen who are giving me their assistance, and I must rely on the existing machinery until it is wound up.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: Would it not conduce to efficiency, as well as economy, if such parts of the Irish Office as are now operating were brought within the ambit of the Colonial Office and the whole matter administrated from there?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I am sure it would not. I am afraid I cannot at this stage of the business of transferring power to the Irish Free State and the bringing of that Free State into existence undertake to be responsible for all the detailed work of the Irish Office and for the technical business of winding it up. In regard to policy and such matters as bringing the Irish Free State into existence, I can attend to that with the slender staff I have from the Colonial Office and, aided by the Chief Secretary, I can transact that business, but it would be impossible for me to carry on as at present unless I have the machinery of the Irish Office kept in being until such time as it is definitely wound up.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is Mr. Cope, who is now in Dublin Castle, on the staff of the Irish Office or on that of the Colonial Office?

Mr. CHURCHILL: On the staff of the Irish Office.

Colonel ASHLEY: What is he doing there? The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for Ireland now, and the Irish Office is only winding up certain financial matters. What is Mr. Cope doing in Dublin?

Mr. CHURCHILL: He is and has been for a long time discharging in Dublin services and duties of incomparable value in establishing an easy channel of communication between those responsible on this side of the Channel and the representatives of the Provisional Government on the other side.

Colonel ASHLEY: That bears out what I was asking. The right hon. Gentleman says Mr. Cope is the channel of communication between the right hon. Gentleman and the Provisional Government. I do not complain of that. But what is Mr. Cope doing on the staff of the Chief Secretary?

Mr. CHURCHILL: What does it matter in the next few weeks or months in this period of transition whether a valuable officer who is doing useful work continues to be borne on the staff of the Department to which hitherto he has been attached or whether he is transferred to a new Department?

MEXICO.

Major CHRISTOPHER LOWTHER: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any-written or verbal undertaking by His Majesty's Government to the Government of the United States of America regarding the policy to be pursued towards Mexico; and, if so, what is the nature of the undertaking?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No undertaking of the nature suggested has been given by His Majesty's Government.

Major C. LOWTHER: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet made himself acquainted with the agreement concluded between the International Committee of Bondholders and the Mexican Finance Minister in New York?

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the reported arrangement for the settlement of the obligations of Mexico; and can he say whether the British-owned railways are included in the suggested settlement?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The International Committee are a purely private body and are under no obligation to inform His Majesty's Government of their proceedings, which accordingly in no way affect the responsibilities of His Majesty's Government. The Committee have not furnished any information about the agreement which has been reported in the Press, but inquiries are being made.

Major LOWTHER: In view of the fact that on several occasions the hon. Gentleman has said it is important to know how British interests stand in Mexico, would it not be worth the while of the Foreign Office to make inquiries very speedily as to the nature of this agreement? Would it not be possible to get a copy of it in a few hours to-day?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is a matter entirely for this private Committee, which I have no doubt will furnish any information as may be desired.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Can I have an answer to the last part of my question?

Mr HARMSWORTH: That is one of the matters in regard to which we are making inquiries. The constitution of the Committee includes bankers, but I am not specifically informed whether the railways are included in the suggested settlement.

INDIAN ARMY (BRITISH OFFICERS' PAY).

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 59.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India for what reason the revised rates of pay for British officers of the Indian Army, published in Indian Army Instructions of 28th June, 1921, by which the pay of a major, after five years' service in that rank, is fixed at Rs.1,050 per mensem, is limited to officers who are regimentally employed, and has not been extended to cantonment magistrates and other departmental officers; and whether this extension will now be considered?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The improved scale sanctioned in 1921 was not applied to departmental officers, because the Government of India and the Secretary of State-in-Council accepted the view of the Esher Committee that no further increase was required in the total emoluments of these officers, which had been revised in 1919.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I ask why Question No. 18 has not been called?

Mr. SPEAKER: It was answered before the hon. and gallant Gentleman arrived.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: When?

Mr. SPEAKER: It was answered in conjunction with No. 12.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Captain W. BENN: I desire to ask you a question, Mr. Speaker, on a point
of Order. Some time ago, owing to the large number of questions which appeared on the Paper, you ruled, with the> general assent of the House, that a Member should not be permitted to put more than a certain number of questions, namely, three, on the Order Paper. The purpose of that was to prevent one Member from getting an advantage over others whose names appeared later on the list of questions. Since the House re-assembled after the Recess, on nearly every day, or on many days, the hour allotted to questions has not been exhausted by the number of questions on the Paper. In these circumstances, I submit to you that if on any day the number of questions, when asked and answered, has not exhausted the time allowed, on the second call you should permit Members to ask questions which they may have put down in excess of what is called the "ration." [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] As you know, Sir, the privilege of interrogating Ministers is one of the most valued privileges of the private Members of the House, and the more unequally divided the forces in the House may be, the more necessary it is that the minority should be protected.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite true that for the last four or five days there has been a slight diminution in the number of questions, but I think I should be very sanguine were I confident that that was likely to continue. I understand that there have been certain temporary, but quite definite, causes for that diminution, and it would be prudent, for a little while, to wait and see. I would only say, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member, that, should it prove, over any continued period, that it might be possible to revert to a larger number of questions, I shall be glad then to put the matter to the sense of the House, as my predecessor did when the present rule was settled as to three questions being regarded as the maximum.

Captain BENN: Would it not be possible for you, Sir, if on any day it appears that Question Time is not exhausted you should then call questions in excess of ration on that day only?

Mr. SPEAKER: That might lead to a little misunderstanding. I believe that, when my predecessor established the present rule of three questions, it was done
clearly in order not to allow certain Members to get too much advantage over the rest. I cannot say more at the moment. I will watch.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are you, Sir, alive to the fact that the present Rule, as it is now working, seriously curtails the time allotted to private Members to question the Executive? Instead of an hour we are now merely having three quarters of an hour, and there never was an Executive which required more questioning.

Captain BENN: I beg to give notice that, with your permission, Sir, I shall ask this question again in a fortnight's time.

Lieut-Colonel J. WARD: Is it not a fact that we have had this time in the last two or three days largely because the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is now in a more responsible position in the House and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has been absent; and is it not a fact that usually, instead of being limited to three questions, he puts on an average about 30, and though his salary, like mine, is £400 a year, it costs nearly £2,000 a year to print the questions he puts to Ministers?

Mr. SPEAKER: I put it in another way. I said there were "certain temporary causes" which I did not further explain. Perhaps it is better left there.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. S. WALSH: Can the Secretary of State for the Colonies say to what extent the Government propose to go on the Order Paper to-day?

Mr. CHURCHILL: After conversation with my right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, I hope that we shall get the first 10 Orders on the Paper. I am advised that none of them can really be considered very controversial, and it will greatly facilitate the business of the House if we can advance this set of small Bills each one further Parliamentary stage.

Motion made, and Question put, "That Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the

Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—{Mr. Churchill.]

The House divided: Ayes. 210: Noes, 68.

Division No. 205.]
AYES.
[3.45 P.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Roilox)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Glyn, Major Ralph
Nall, Major Joseph


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Goff, Sir R. Park
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gould, James C-
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Atkey, A. R.
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Gretton, Colonel John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Baldwin, Rt Hon. Stanley
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col- Hon. W. E.
Parker, James


Barlow, Sir Montague
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Pearce, Sir William


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Barnston, Major Harry
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Llv'p'I.W.D'by)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Hamilton, Sir George C.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pratt, John William


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Birchall, J. Dearman
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Randies, Sir John Scurrah


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Haslam, Lewis
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Borwick, Major G. O.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Remnant, Sir James


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hilder. Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford. Hereford)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hopkins, John W. W.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Britton, G. B.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rodger, A. K.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Houfton, John Plowright
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J, (Darwen)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan Hughes
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Jephcott, A. R.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Butcher, Sir John George
Jesson, C.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Kidd, James
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Carr, W. Theodore
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Casey, T. W.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Cautley, Henry Strother
Larmor, Sir Joseph
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Stanton, Charles Butt


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Starkey, Captain John Ralph


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Lloyd, George Butter
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Clay, Lieut-Colonel H. H. Spender
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stewart, Gershom


Clough, Sir Robert
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Coats, Sir Stuart
Lorden, John William
Sugden, W. H.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sutherland, Sir William


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Taylor, J.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Thomson, F. C (Aberdeen, South)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitcheil- (Maryhill)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Tryon, Major George Clement


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Vickers, Douglas


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Macquisten, F. A.
Ward, Col. L. (Stake-upon-Trent)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Magnus, Sir Philip
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Waring, Major Walter


Dewhurst, Lieut-Commander Harry
Marks, Sir George Croydon
White, Col G. D. (Southport)


Dockreil, Sir Maurice
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Edge, Captain Sir William
Mason, Robert
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Matthews, David
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Middlebrook, Sir William
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Mildmnay, Colonel St. Hon. F. B.
Windsor, Viscount


Fell, Sir Arthur
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Winterton, Earl


Fildes, Henry
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Mcritz
Wise, Frederick


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Forrest, Walter
Marten, Col. W. Grant
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Moreing. Captain Algernon H.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Morrtson-Betr, Major A. C.
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert



Gardiner, James
Murchison, C. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gilbert, James Daniel
Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton le-Spring)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hallas, Eldred
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Halls, Walter
Robertson, John


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
Royce, William Stapleton


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Holmes, J. Stanley
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Irving, Dan
Spencer, George A.


Crown, Jamas (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spoor, B. G.


Cairns, John
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Kelley, Major Fred (Hotherham)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davies, A (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Lawson, John James
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wignall, James


Finney, Samuel
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Williams. Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Foot, Isaac
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Galbraith, Samuel
Mills, John Edmund
Wintringham, Margaret


Gillis, William
Mostey, Oswald
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Graham, O. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)



Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Myers, Thomas
Mr. Hogge and Mr. Kennedy.


Grundy, T. W.
O'Connor, Thomas P.



Bill read a Second time.

RAMSGATE CORPORATION BILL [Lords.]

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Glamorgan (Gower Division), in the room of JOHN WILLIAMS, deceased.—[Wr. Fred Hall.

RAILWAY AND CANAL COMMISSION (CONSENTS) BILL,

"to amend the Law as respects certain matters in connection with which the consent of the Railway and Canal Commission is required," presented by Lieut. -Colonel Sir ROBERT SANDERS; supported by Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, Sir Ernest Pollock, and Lieut.-Colonel Stanley; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 179.]

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Rendall to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Adoption of Children Bill); Sir William Pearce as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill); and
Mr. Turton as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Bill [Lords] and of the Telegraph (Money) Bill).

Report to upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to: Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Stretford and District Gas Board Bill [Lords,] without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision with respect to the qualifications of persons proposing to become or to practise as Solicitors."[Solicitors Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate and amend the enactments relating to Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries in England and Wales."[Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill [Lords.]

SOLICITORS BILL [Lords.]

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL [Lords.]

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 178.]

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The House will recollect that for some years there has been an agitation in regard to the questions dealt with in this Bill. In 1918 two Bills were referred to a Joint Select Committee, and that Committee heard a number of witnesses and a considerable amount of evidence, but the Dissolution of Parliament came before the Committee had reported. In 1920, the Committee was again constituted, under the same Chairman, Lord Muir Mackenzie, and they completed their investigations. Last year a Bill was introduced into the other House on the lines of those recommendations of the Committee which were considered as little as possible contentious. The Bill passed its Second Reading in both Houses by considerable majorities, but, unfortunately, certain Amendments were disagreed between the two Houses, and there was not time to settle the disagreements before the end of the Session. This year we thought it right that the Bill should be taken up as a Government Bill and introduced into this House, and it is now brought in as a Government Bill.
There is very little in the Bill that has not been thoroughly debated in this House. Therefore, the House will not wish me to take up its time in dealing with all the details. The first provision deals with the age of consent for indecent assault. There was considerable discussion about that, and the Government have come to the conclusion that the age ought to be made 16, the same as the age of consent for carnal knowledge. There are various other provisions, most of which are entirely non-contentious, 6uch as punishment for keeping brothels, and so on. The main dispute arises on Clause 2, and as to that there is very considerable difference of opinion in the House. Clause 2 provides that reasonable cause to believe that the girl in question was
over 16 shall no longer be a defence. The question whether it is right or wrong to put in that provision was thoroughly discussed in this House last year, and I do not think that the House would desire that I should repeat all the matters which were discussed then. In addition, the subject has been one on which considerable negotiation and discussion has taken place. On the one hand, a very large body of people interested in these subjects is very strongly in favour of the provision as it stands. On the other hand, there is a very considerable body of opinion which thinks that it is an unfair thing to take away that defence. I think I am correct in saying that the people who oppose taking away that defence are comparatively speaking, a small minority.
There has been much negotiation about the exemption from this provision of young men who may be tempted by girls who were more to blame than they. Those who are very strongly in favour of the Clause are willing to consent to some such exemption as this, that where the accused person is under a certain age, say, for the sake of argument, 21 or 23, or whatever age may be agreed upon, the magistrate before whom the charge is heard may, instead of committing him for trial, treat the case under the Summary Jurisdiction Act and merely bind him over. That is not satisfactory to many of those who are opposed to the Clause, and who desire that a young man under the specified age, whether 21, 23, or whatever it might be, should still have the defence open to him. so that it might be said of him that he had not been guilty of a crime at all.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Would that be only in the case of a first offence?

Mr. SHORTT: One of the suggestions was that that should apply only to a case of first offence.

Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: In the alternative of binding the person over, I take it that the conviction would still be recorded against him for life?

4.0 p.m.

Mr. SHORTT: It would be under the Probation Act, under which, as the hon. Member knows, there need be no conviction. The ordinary powers under that Act will be available for the magistrate to exercise, in the circumstances. I have mentioned these facts to show that there is one main dispute over the provisions of
the Bill, but really it is a Committee question. Those Members of the Government who have met deputations have undertaken that something shall be done in Committee for the young man, but I am not in a position to-day to make any definite statement as to which of the alternatives the Government are prepared to accept and put forward. I think it is entirely a Committee point; indeed, most of the points raised in this Measure are purely Committee points. This Bill was read a Second time last year by a considerable majority. The Members of the House who discussed it then are the Members of the House to-day. Therefore, I do not think that it would be right of me to take up any further time, and I will merely ask the House to give it a Second Reading. Then we can settle in Committee what relief is to be given to the young men who, in the opinion of so many, ought to have some kind of relief given to them.

Major C. LOWTHER: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
I can assure the House that I feel I am undertaking a most disagreeable and unpleasant duty. Last year, when I moved the rejection of a Bill very similar in character, I endeavoured to put before the House certain arguments which were closely related to the construction of the Bill and to show, to the best of my ability, that, if this Bill were to become an Act of Parliament, there would be granted, through Clause 2, such a Charter to blackmailers as I am sure it would never be the desire of this House to grant to such infamous undesirable persons. My arguments were elaborated and put with much more technical skill by other Members of the House who have professional legal knowledge in this matter. During the course of its further stages through this House, there were Amendments made to the Bill, and, in particular, a new Clause, to which the Home Secretary made no sort of reference, was added which, if the sense of the House is to count for anything at all, was passed by a considerable majority. I venture to note that that Clause finds no place in the present Bill. It is not my intention this afternoon to
go over the arguments which I most inadequately expressed last Session. I think I had better leave them to others, far better qualified than I, to deal with them.
I feel constrained, however, to make certain observations as to the conduct of the Government as regards this Bill. In the most gracious Speech from the Throne, this Bill loomed large. It was mentioned among other important Measures, such as altering the yearly rating, or something of that kind, and it came hot upon the most important of all Measures—the reform of the House of Lords. What was the reason of that? It was, as the Home Secretary himself said, because of an agitation. "For some years," says the Home Secretary, "there has been an agitation." Just about that time the agitation became rather strong. Various enthusiastic and well-meaning, but, if I may venture the criticism, unreasoning societies, composed largely, I believe, of women and of others very strongly interested in certain causes, insisted that this Bill should be passed into law. The Government yielded. They put this Bill into the King's Speech, and they promised the House, as I understand, that it should be passed into law as soon as possible. In fact, the Second Heading of the Bill was put down on the Order Paper within a few days after the passing of the Address in reply to the Most Gracious Speech from the Throne. It was put down long before a copy of the Bill was obtainable in the Vote Office. On many occasions I went to the Vote Office to inquire if I might have a copy of the Bill, and I was informed that it was not yet out of the printer's hands. From that I gauged the amount of enthusiasm which the Government really had for this Measure, and I think I am not wrong when I state that as soon as the agitation subsided, so soon did the Government's enthusiasm to pass this Bill into law subside. The matter has thus dragged on until now, and the agitation has arisen again.
The Home Secretary may think me rude when I make the remark, but it does strike me that the attitude of the Government on this matter is like that of the schoolboy bully, rather overbearing in victory, perhaps not too brave in defeat, but, certainly, easily terrorised into
taking any course of action when the clamour against him is sufficiently strong. In this case, the clamour has been strong and has been fitful, and it is just when the clamour is at its strongest that the Government adopt some measure to move onwards this particular Bill. One would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, in his opening speech, would have adduced some facts, some figures, or some statistics to show that this Bill is necessary at all. I should have thought that he would have endeavoured, by giving us the opinion of those whose business it is to deal with these matters, to show that the particular offences against which this Bill enacts penalties are on the increase. I should have thought that he would have endeavoured to tell the House that this Bill had become absolutely necessary, not because of an agitation but because of the subject itself. He did no such thing. He never told us that the state of morality in this country is any worse now than it was a few years ago. He has produced no sort of figures, and he has not even brought before us the opinions of either magistrates, judges, or those whose criminal practice entitle them to express an opinion upon the matter. What is the reason? He knows very well that those opinions are dead against him.
There is a country where the law is held in contempt and where it is daily mocked, and that country is the United States of America. What is the reason? The reason is that the legislators of that country have paid attention to such agitations as these by loud-voiced, unreasoning societies, and have not attended to what should be their proper duty—the consideration of the merits of the case. Let the right hon. Gentleman beware lest in espousing the cause of this Bill he does very much the same in this country. I do not know whether the Government think that by passing this Bill they are going to gain for themselves a large number of votes. If they do, they are greatly mistaken. People in this country are sick to death of stunt legislation, of which, perhaps, this is the most unlovely example. They know perfectly well, because they have had experience of it, that when the Government pass legislation it is passed only to be repealed within a very short time. They have had experience of it, and experience enough.
With that experience the great majority of voters in this country have but one cry, and that is: "Leave us alone. Leave us alone to mind our own business." I can assure the House that it is very distasteful to me to rise on this occasion, but I must say that I consider that the onus of proving that this Bill is necessary rests upon the Government and upon the Home Secretary to tell us why it is necessary. It is no use for him to say that certain matters will be raised in Committee. We know that well enough. Let us beware, this afternoon lest, in passing the Second Reading of this Bill, we take a step which hereafter we shall regret, and which not so very long hence we shall be called upon to retrace.
The Bill itself, as I believe other hon. Members will point out, is a bad one. It has been forced upon the House because of the agitation of a certain number of vocal, enthusiastic and well-meaning, if you will, societies who really do not know what they are talking about. The Home Secretary and the Government do not care a rap whether it succeeds or fails once it is passed into law. They think that having passed it into law they will have secured for themselves a certain number of votes, and that is all they care about. That is the poorest recommendation that could possibly be made in favour of this Bill, and, if it were for no other reason than that, I should feel justified in moving its rejection.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I rise also to take up the unpopular role of an opponent of this Bill. The Home Secretary, who to-day is not a particularly popular figure in the community, reminds me of the sneezing baby in "Alice in Wonderland"—
He only does it to annoy,
Because he knows it teases.
That is the desire, it seems to me, in proposing this Bill. I want to know as the former speaker wants to know, why, when this Bill failed as a private Measure, it should now have the blessing of the Government. It is now clothed in all the panoply of a Government Measure incorporated in the King's Speech. Why was all that done? Was it done because of the great pressure of women's organisations in this country? If so, it seems to me a sad confession on the part of the Home Secretary of hen-pecking. Was it
perhaps the pressure brought to bear by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton)? He was one of the strong advocates of this Bill last Session. He played a very prominent part. He made speeches most of the day and most of the night in favour of it, and, like all his speeches, they were rather bullying and hectoring, and they all mentioned, as all his speeches do, how many years he has been a Member of this House. The only thing I got from them was a sort of impression—anyhow from his appearance—that he was made a Member of this House when below the age of consent. Now he sits on the Front Bench and has been a great success.
But we find this Bill a Government Measure, and we have got to treat it as such: Legislation on sexual matters is a very dangerous thing. Sometimes things which are admittedly wrong are best left alone and not dealt with by legislation. We must remember that in matters of sex, we are dealing with forces of which we are only the expression. They are forces that are not stopped by even a threat of two years' imprisonment. They are controlled by education and not-by threats or penalties. I believe that if we do away with all the law with regard to sex we should still breed very much the same sort of people an we breed now. I would press on the House that when we are dealing with a subject like this, it is not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of whether it is a wise thing to pass in Statutes measures like this. When we had this Bill up last Session we had a question arising out of mono-sexuality among women. No one thought that it was right, everybody was against it, but whether it is or is not a right thing to pass a law against it, is a different question. The Commons rushed in where the House of Lords feared to tread, and it was because of this very Amendment that the Bill failed.
I am not going to deal with the question of blackmail, which almost automatically arises with the passing of a Bill like this, but there are two broad principles of opposition to this Measure. The first is this. After discussing it with many people who are very much in favour of it, it is, in my opinion, the thin end of the legislative wedge with regard to eugenics in this country. Eugenism is very admirable on paper: in practice it is particularly
difficult. First, you do not know what you want, and, secondly, you do not know how to get it. Some people want a race of men all like the Home Secretary, others want a race of men all like Carpentier, but we do not know how to get it. It is a very difficult thing to introduce legislation on those lines. Any legislation, in my opinion, on those lines is bad, because it introduces a fundamentally new idea, that is that you impose penalties upon the present community for the possible benefit of the future. That is to my mind a very bad idea in legislation. There is one other point with regard to that, that is the survival in this country among the societies which are pressing for the passing of this Measure of what is generally termed asceticism. Asceticism, to my mind, is one of the curses which Christianity imposed upon Europe in the middle ages. Slowly it is disappearing, but we must remember that it-was a will towards self-destruction, and the sooner it is wiped out from all those societies that plead for Measures like this, the better.
The second ground of opposition is that it is legislation against one sex more than another. Look through the list of the societies which support it, and you will find a great preponderance of women societies. Everybody will admit that premature sexual intercourse, both of male and female, is undesirable and should be avoided, but the question is, rather, does the female develop more quickly than the male? All education in this country is really a conspiracy to delay the sexual growth of the boy. You will find right through all the schools in the country that all athletics are exaggerated up to a fetish, so as to concentrate the boy's mind upon some subject and get him away from thoughts of sex until an age when it does not matter very much. It is a very different thing when you are dealing with girls, because the early 'teens of a girl is the one age when any great exertion is quite impossible, and consequently the thoughts of girls turn to sex much more naturally than they do with boys. Having established that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who is your authority?"]—If what I say be true, that sexual development is later with boys than with girls, why should it be assumed that one sex is automatically more vicious than another? That is really at the bottom
of this Bill. There is the fundamental assumption that one sex is vicious and the other is entirely pure.
I would not object to this Bill one bit if we had equal treatment proposed, but this is legislation directed entirely towards one sex. Before I sit down, I want to object in some way to the sort of Pharisaical idea which prevails among those who are in favour of this Bill concerning those who are against it. If we object to this Bill, we are not automatically debased scoundrels, but we happen to have taken a little more interest in the subject than those who assume straight away that this Bill is right. If I thought for one moment that this Bill would stop one assault upon one girl, I would be in favour of it, but what I am convinced will happen is that you will make criminals of many boys who do not deserve it. If you want to get criminals, if that is the desire of the Home Secretary, this Bill is a very admirable Measure. If, on the other band, you want to get public morality, then you must direct your efforts along other paths.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: The House is always jealous of its right of free debate, and I do not myself regret in the least the expressions of opinion to which we have listened from the hon. Members who moved and seconded the rejection of this Bill. That is what the House is for—to hear the real opinions of people regarding Measures of legislation laid before it. I may, however, be permitted to say that I do not think either of these speeches is at all likely to damage the progress of the Measure through the House. The first comment I would make on the general position of the hon. Members is this, that they were too young —one of them by at least two years and the other one I have not had time to look up—to appreciate the fact that the broad general position was settled by this House under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, which was passed after a debate which I read, in which opinions such as they have expressed and opinions of men who held views very strongly, after an agitation inside and outside this House almost unparalleled in its intensity on both sides, were fully expressed. And the whole question of the protection of young
girls under 16, in its general position, was then settled and settled finally so far as the vast majority of people in this country are concerned.
The views which the hon. Members have expressed on eugenics and matters of that kind are interesting personal opinions, but not the settled opinions of the nation as a whole. They are mere personal opinions. Look at this Bill! What possible objection can there be to Clause 1 It simply says that young persons up to 16 shall not be able to consent to an act of indecency. Is there any objection to that? There can be no objection. As showing the progress of the law, may I say that up to 1885 any young child, any infant, could be deemed to have consented to an act of indecency by a man of any age. That has passed away. We are making progress very slowly, much too slowly for my taste, but still we. arc moving on, and we now say that no young person under 16 shall be deemed to be able to consent to an act of indecency to him or her. I think that there is very little objection to Clause 1.
In Clause 3 there are certain Amendments to penalties under Section 13 of the principal Act. Then there is another Amendment of the law relating to giving power for the hearing of cases of incest in open Court. I think that that is a good thing though I used not to think so: I have changed my mind. Now I come to Clause 2. That is the real difficulty. It is said that the movement in favour of this Amendment of the law, which is to take away the "reasonable cause to believe," is supported by fanatical women societies and organised bodies of opinion which are not based upon very sound argument, but rather on sentimental opinions. I submit that that is not the fact. If hon. Members have followed the course of this agitation or the propaganda in favour of this Bill, they must have been struck by the fact that the organised opinion in favour of this change in the law comes largely, most powerfully and substantially, from those who have most to do with the administration of the law.
May I take such a society as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. That society started, I think, in 1887, and its initiation was marked by precisely the same sort of argument which we have
heard to-day. But that society—I am only taking it as an example—has shown by its careful administration of the law and by its dealings with the cases with which it was concerned that it has been the exponent, not of fanatical opinion, but of cold, legal, hard-won experience in the Law Courts of the land. The amendment of the law proposed by this Clause receives the overwhelming support of the most experienced police court officials in the country. It is conceivable that this terrible crime of blackmail—than which there is nothing more dastardly in the records of law or which brings greater condemnation from all fair-minded citizens —prevails so widely in connection with the administration of the law as it stands, or as it is likely to be with the proposed alteration of it? If it had been so, we know perfectly well that the Home Secretary and others who take an interest in the matter would knew of it.
The House will forgive me for referring to my own personal knowledge of the subject. A good many years ago I had some rather special experience in this class of case, and I do not think it is exaggerating to say that I had personal knowledge of not fewer than 200 cases of this special kind, quite apart from hundreds of other cases of which I had knowledge. I have conducted quite 200 cases of this kind. I cannot recollect a single case in which blackmail arose. There were other features to which I shall not allude, but I assure the House that, as far as my knowledge of police experience is concerned, small though it may be, and of the various calm and impartial bodies of organised opinion, there is no serious danger of blackmail. You cannot pass any legislation without some fear of injustice affecting someone. What the House has to do is what it has always done. It asks itself, "Where on the whole does the greatest benefit to the community lie?" And it decides accordingly. What does the Clause do? It simply says that the defence shall not be raised that the offender had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was over the age of 16 years. The law says that no girl under the age of 16 shall have these relations, whether she consents or not That is settled absolutely. An immense amount of cumulative evidence from impartial authorities shows that owing to the operation of the law in the Courts offenders
have got off who ought to have been convicted, and it shows also that that defence should no longer be open. That being the basis of the Bill, and the steady progress of public opinion being such as to demand the alteration in the law that is here proposed, I hope that the House will, without any heat, pass the Bill. I do not deny the bona fides or the public spirit which moves Members who differ from me on this question, but I believe that nothing has happened since last year which does other than strengthen the public opinion which is behind this Measure. I am quite certain that in passing this Bill the House will be legislating, not in advance of public opinion, but far behind its high-water mark.

Major Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: I went with a considerable number of other Members of this House on a deputation to the Government about a fortnight ago, on the subject of this Bill. On that occasion we were received by the Lord Chancellor, the Leader of the House, the Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General. Various members of the deputation put their views before those right hon. Gentlemen, and they were replied to at considerable length by the Lord Chancellor. He said that he had great sympathy with the point of view which I especially had ventured to lay before the Government representatives, namely, the point of view of the defence and the protection of young men. I made an appeal to the Government to this effect: "As far as I am concerned I loathe and detest having to take any part in this type of legislation, or having to speak on such subjects as are contained in this Bill, in the House or elsewhere. Do, therefore, let us know, before the Bill comes up for Second Beading, what the Government intend to do to protect the young boy." The Lord Chancellor said that he would immediately get into touch with the Home Secretary, and that they would come to an immediate decision. I then pointed out to the Lord Chancellor that this Bill was down as the Second Order of the Day for the very next day in this House. The Leader of the House came towards me in the room and said:
I promise you that when this Bill is introduced by the Home Secretary, a definite statement will be made as to what the Government action is to be.
Of course, I cannot say that that was a definite pledge of any sort, but, unfortu-
nately, in the absence of the Leader of the House, we are landed to-day in the position that the Home Secretary introduces this Bill, which last Session was a private Bill, that the Bill has now been taken up with the whole authority of the Government, and that it is introduced without the least explanation why the Government have taken it up. The Home Secretary says not a word as to its necessity in the country or as to the benefit which the Government hope to get by the passing of such legislation.
The Home Secretary puts fairly before the House the point of view that I hold-that young men up to 25 should be protected under this Bill. He puts the other point of view which certain societies have put to try to meet me—that it would be possible to meet the case under the Probation Act. He says it is a Committee point. I have been in the House a few years, and I have always understood that when a representative of the Government was trying to get a Bill through on Second Reading the best course for him to follow was to try to appease the Opposition by some statement' as to what the Government intended to do, not only on Second Beading but in Committee upstairs, where the Government will have their Whips and the Home Secretary will have his full authority, and where the unfortunate people who are trying to see wise legislation and not foolish legislation passed will not get much assistance. The protection of boys is all that I want. The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) made an interesting and charming speech. I totally disagree with him, for I do not think he understands the point of view which we take on this Bill. The last time I spoke on this Bill it was at 3 o'clock in the morning, and my right hon. Friend was then present. The Government will not tell us what they intend to do, and we must, therefore, try to put our case before the House. We must try to persuade hon. Members who do not agree with us that we have some reason to fear that legislation of this kind is liable to create offences in the country instead of preventing offences.
I will deal for a moment with the Bill itself. The right hon. Member for Peebles seemed to wipe Clause 1 off the map altogether. He does not remember that when Clause 1 was voted on in this
House on Report and Third Reading, last year, it was entirely different from what it is now. It had been amended by a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons upstairs, and there had been added to the Clause a most important alteration suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson). That Amendment had been made to Clause 1 when the right hon. Member for Peebles approved of the Bill at 3 o'clock in the morning last Session. It was an entirely different Clause from this Clause. He says now that Clause 1 is settled, and he asks, what is the use of quarrelling about it? My right hon. Friend did not object to the Amendment of the Clause last year. Clause 1, as drawn now, means that if a boy and girl of the same age, say 15, are travelling in a railway carriage, and the girl, feeling sex very strongly within her. assaults the boy, and the boy then kisses her, it is a criminal offence on the part of the boy, and the girl is held perfectly innocent.
That is the meaning of Clause 1 as printed in this Bill to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no '"] Hon. Members opposite do not understand it, so what is the good of saying, "No, no!" They should have been here as I was last Session to listen to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson). who explained the Clause from the legal point of view and stated the reason why the Amendment was accepted by the Joint Committee upstairs. It was explained to us that the danger was that you are making it a criminal offence for a man to kiss a girl, and to put his hand on her, if that girl happened to be 15 years of age, whether she appeared to be 20 years of age or more, and whether or not what was done was done with her encouragement and incitement and consent. Two years in gaol a boy can get for it. Is this House going to pass legislation which will make it possible for some spiteful and puritanical creature to get a young man two years in gaol for kissing a girl in a railway carriage, when that girl appears to be 20 and happens to be 15? That is what this legislation means.

Sir F. BANBURY: Hear, hear!

Sir G. HAMILTON: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for
the City of London for his support. We do not want to see young girls assaulted. We are anxious to improve the law, just as anxious as hon. Members opposite. We have just as much interest in girls of 15 as they have. If the hon. Friend opposite who, I see, does not agree with me, will be good enough to have tea with mo, I will introduce him to my own daughter of 15, and a very pretty daughter she is, too. I can assure him that we who are arguing this point also remember that we have sons, and that we have to think of the boys just as much as of the girls. Surely, this legislation is stupid; it is all wrong. If an offence be a moral offence, surely it is just as bad for the girl as for the boy. It is just as immoral for a girl to consent to this sort of thing as it is for a boy to do it. I appeal to hon. Members not to be hasty. The Amendment made to the Clause last Session had the effect of putting the girl on the same footing as the man. If the girl consented, whatever her age might be, it would be a criminal offence on her part just as much as on the man's part. That appears to me to be reasonable, especially for the reason that it would prevent blackmail. The right hon. Member for Peebles says he has known of 200 cases in the past, and in none of these was there blackmail. We are not worrying about the past, but about the future. Blackmail is going to be increased by this Bill. The right hon. Member refers to 200 cases which came to his personal knowledge, but this Bill had not been passed by a foolish House of Commons 10 years ago when he was dealing with these cases.
I am not dealing with the old roué. I am perfectly ready to agree to a limit of 25 years of age or less. Any man over the age of 25 who starts cuddling a girl of 15, whatever age she may appear to be, ought to pay for it and go to gaol, but we ought to protect the young man. By this Clause we would put temptations to blackmail in the way of a certain class of the most objectionable criminals in this country, namely, the people who encourage young girls to go about and entice young men into wickedness. These are the people we want to get hold of and legislate against, not the young boy who is led away by passionate sexual feeling, being encouraged by the girl to kiss and cuddle her. In such a case what is going
to happen? Blackmail He is immediately informed that he can get two years, that there are two witnesses, and that a case will be brought against him if he does not immediately pay up £50 or £100, £10 or £5 or 10s., according to his class in life, and his appearance of wealth or otherwise. The so-called parents of this girl, who are really these disreputable criminals failing to get blackmail, will have the wretched boy dragged before the Court and he has no defence. He cannot say the girl encouraged him or led him on; the girl's age is proved to be under 16, and he has to go to gaol for two years.
In regard to Clause 2, again my right hon. Friend does not see there is a possibility of blackmail. Under Clause 2 the suggestion is that we should take away the defence that the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was above the statutory age. I am no lawyer, though I have been a magistrate for some years, but looking at it as a mere Member of Parliament it seems to me that we are now going to deal with the criminal law of this country in a manner different from that employed at any time in the previous history of the country. It used to be a great principle of the party which my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles is so ably leading at the moment that liberty of the subject in this country had to be safeguarded in Parliament. Is it liberty to charge a boy with a criminal offence and take away his only defence? What is that defence? It is that when he committed, what he knew and what the girl equally knew to be a moral offence, with her consent and encouragement, knowing it to be a moral offence, he had reasonable cause to believe that it was not a criminal offence.
That is the law of the land as it is to-day. A boy or young man commits the offence of having carnal knowledge of a woman: he has reasonable cause to believe that the woman who encourages him and commits the same moral offence as he does, who is morally as bad as he is, is, by her appearance, by her statement —possibly even by the fact that she shows him her elder sister's birth certificate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—19 or 20 years of age when she is only 15. I am putting a special case. Young men and girls in a certain class of life very often walk out before becoming engaged to be married. Such a pair may
be walking out together; they may talk of being married without being actually engaged. The girl is anxious to become engaged, and she produces a certificate—her sister's—showing that she is 18 years of age, though she is actually 15 years. With her encouragement and consent impropriety takes place. The moral offence—and I want to repeat and emphasise this—is just as bad in the case of the girl as of the boy. Then they quarrel; they never become engaged. [HON. MEMBERS: "Have you known a case?"] Even if I do not, it does not require much imagination to suppose that such a case might occur. I am only putting it in reference to the possibility of a birth certificate being used. Assuming such a case to be possible, the boy may fall in love with another girl and become engaged to her. The first girl is jealous; her parents are furious, and they charge the boy with having had carnal knowledge of her when she was under 16. He has no defence, although he has actually seen a birth certificate. He is not allowed to bring that evidence into Court. What would be the object of bringing that evidence into Court? Merely to convince the judge and a jury, upon which women may be sitting, that, although this boy knew he was committing the same moral offence as the girl was committing, he had reasonable cause to believe that he was not committing a criminal offence. Take away the defence of an inexperienced young man in charges of this sort, and you make him liable to a term of imprisonment, which, I believe, can be five years under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885. The Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong in that.

Mr. SHORTT: Two years.

Sir G. HAMILTON: I think I understood from the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlin-son) that under Sections 5 and 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, a term of five years could be imposed and that under Section 1 for an act of indecency two years was the limit. I may be wrong and perhaps one of my legal friends will look it up and speaking later on put the Home Secretary wise on the subject. We in this House do not all of us have to administer the law, but we are all responsible for making the laws. Is it right
that we with our eyes open should pass legislation which has the effect of making a young man a criminal without allowing him to show to a jury that although he committed a moral offence he had reasonable cause which he could justify before a judge and jury to believe that he was only committing a moral offence and not a criminal offence? I appeal to the House to consider these two Clauses before they decide to vote in favour of the Bill. The Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Peebles in discussing the possibility of Amendments in Committee seemed to argue that the whole of these societies—I have here a circular letter signed on behalf of 68 associations—were opposed to our view on this particular matter. This circular letter which was sent as recently as 26th May of this year to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, the Home Secretary, and, I believe, every Member of the House, contains paragraphs which indicate a rather different point of view. The letter says:
We fully understand the objection to the Clause—the possibility of an innocent lad being charged, after falling a victim to some depraved young girl, purposely posing, before the offence has been committed, to be over 16. These eases are exuemely rare and could be dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907. If. however, a further safeguard is considered advisible, to prevent the possibility of injustice to a young defendant, a proviso enabling the Court to abstain from recording the conviction would have our approval.
Why should we in Parliament leave it to the Court to abstain from recording a conviction? All we ask Parliament to do is to allow the young man a chance to produce evidence that he had reasonable cause to believe he was not committing a. criminal offence. Surely it is much more sound that he should be allowed to produce that evidence, and if the judge and a jury of 12 of his fellow-citizens consider that evidence unsatisfactory, then he can be convicted. Let us, however, allow him the chance of producing evidence. This circular letter, which is signed by five ladies—at least two of whom I know very well, and admire very much—on behalf of these various societies, uses these words:
The large majority of these cases are those where young girls are the victims of depraved men.
Then it goes on:
This defence affords a substantial protection for men…to seduce young
girls and escape under cover of this well-intentioned, but pernicious defence.
5.0 p.m.
Really is that so? Do men, especially young men, for whom I am speaking, go about hunting for girls to seduce? That seems to be the argument of these various societies. Is that really the feminist outlook on males'? I have always been against feminism. I loathe feminism and the whole of that aspect of the feminist mind which looks upon man as a corrupt creature, hunting about to seduce someone is all wrong. I am confident of this, that the average decent woman, especially if she is a mother, is just as much against feminism as I am. Why should this attitude be taken up by these 68 societies of ladies—though, I observe, they include the Salvation Army, which comprises men, and also the Liberal Federation. What is the "well-intentioned but pernicious defence"? Merely to be able to prove, before a jury of the man's fellow-citizens, on which there might be women, that he knew he was committing a moral offence— equal to the girl's, and no worse—and that he had reasonable cause to believe that the offence was not a criminal offence. I have had consider able correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for the Erdington Division of Birmingham (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) on the subject of the possibility of an Amendment of this; Clause, so as to remove my great objection to it. My hon. Friend wrote to me on the 20th March on this subject. That was just after I had the honour of meeting the Women's Advisory Committee upstairs. I may say I was asked to go there because the Chairman of the Home Affairs Joint Subcommittee had written to me saying that in all probability something could be done to meet my point for the protection of young men. After that meeting my hon. Friend, who presided over the gathering of ladies, wrote to me on the 20th March, and enclosed what he described as a possible method of meeting my ease, that some proviso should be added as follows:
Provided that in the case of a man under 25 years of age the presence of reasonable causes shall be a valid defence on the first occasion on which, but for this reservation, an offence would have been committed by him under the Criminal Law Amendment Acts as amended by this Section.
I replied immediately pointing out that that exactly met my point of view, that it was exactly what I wanted, and brought
forward last time. I never before had thought of a first offence, but, of course, I agree that if a young man of 25 years of age, or less, is charged with this offence, and pleads "reasonable cause to believe," as he would under my proviso, and the jury let him off, and he commits the same offence again, and is charged again while still under 25 years of age— well, there is a good old maxim about dogs, and such a maxim ought to apply to a young man, who has misbehaved himself once, and been protected by the fact that he had reasonable cause to believe he was not committing a criminal offence. He has had a serious warning, and I certainly think on the second charge, whatever his age, he should not be allowed to plead "reasonable cause to believe." I wrote to my hon. Friend saying that I would accept that, but suggested, that instead of it being "under 25 years of age," it should be "of 25 years of age or under." My hon. Friend replied that he was glad to hear that this would meet my views; that, of course, he could not speak for all his association, but would communicate with them, and see what could be done. Gradually he came down to this, that he wrote on the 29th March to say that he found considerable opposition to the exact wording of my Amendment, and he suggested another Amendment. This is roughly the Amendment which the Home Secretary says was one point of view. These are the words:
Provided always that where a person under the age of 21 is charged with an offence under Section 5 of the principal Act, the magistrate may, in lieu of committing him for trial, deal with him under Section 1 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
I do think it is most foolish of these ladies to suggest that this alternative meets the case. All I ask is that the young man shall be allowed to plead "reasonable cause to believe" as evidence, and if he fails in that defence, let him be punished as a criminal; but if he succeeds in that defence, and the jury acquit him, he is not guilty of a criminal offence. But he has been charged with a very bad form of moral offence, and the very fact that he has been charged is enough stigma upon him. These ladies, however, do not only want him to be charged, but that he should not be able to defend himself, and that once it is proved that he did have carnal knowledge of the girl, all that is
necessary is to prove that, and to prove she is under 16, then he is convicted at once of a criminal offence, without further evidence or discussion in the matter. I cannot accept that Amendment, and I am satisfied that if this House allow this Bill to go through as it is, it will be setting up new temptations to blackmail both under Clause 1 and under Clause 2. They will be encouraging the most pernicious creatures in the whole of this country, that is, those who exploit young girls, and tempting these pernicious men and women to go on with their disgusting trade of bringing over to this country well-developed young girls of 14 or 15 years of age from Italy and other warm climates, and exploiting them in the streets of our great towns. I say you are placing temptation in the way of such nefarious creatures, and I ask the House to show in the most outspoken manner that it will not pass such legislation, and that this House is determined that young boys shall be defended just as much as young girls.

Mr. WIGNALL: I am sure the speech to which we have just listened from the hon. and gallant Gentleman was one of sincerity and also one of great exaggeration. I am sure that he has very much exaggerated every point that he has brought out regarding the Bill. We do not find fault with him for that, because all that he has said is within the range of possibility, but we have to fall back upon our own knowledge of life, our own experience of things as we know them. Some of us have had experience of Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and we have got to base our knowledge upon the things that we have seen and know, and I am convinced that all the points of exaggeration are far indeed from reality. I am supporting this Bill to-day because it is based upon a very long and an exhaustive inquiry that was set up by both Houses. For some period I had the privilege of sitting on the Committee that took evidence on this very important question. During the very many months that this Committee sat inquiring into this matter, they took evidence from all sorts and conditions of people, male and female, representative of various societies, people who were engaged in social work, and people who would be, probably, opposed to any legislation at all. Every witness
was given fair play and free scope to advance views, and the members of the Committee questioned them-some of them very closely—so that there was one great mass of evidence which is printed and can be obtained, together with the Report.
After all, the evidence had been taken, and when the Committee had to come to conclusions on the very points that are embodied in the Bill, there was no question of doubt existing in the mind of any Member of the Committee that the law required altering. That was absolutely unanimous. To what extent it should be altered was a debatable point. So far as my memory goes at the moment, I do not think there was any Debate at all as to the first Clause in the Bill, that is, as to the indecent offence, and the taking away of the defence of consent. I do think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did quite unnecessarily exaggerate the point of the kissing of a girl. I thought he spoilt his case by the exaggeration, because such things do happen, we know. But what is the idea of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, what is the conception of a jury who will take evidence and convict on the testimony of a girl that a man kissed her? I should have thought the prosecution would have been one of assault—not of indecent assault. I am rather inclined to think that if everyone were prosecuted for kissing a girl, there would be a good many prosecutions, and that for kissing a girl of 16, or under, there would be a good many prosecutions. A lot more than that would be required to convict. I am all for protecting the girl of 16, and above, if necessary, not from the young man of 16, but from many of the old rogues who are in existence to-day, who are seeking to devour and to destroy the young girl.

Sir G. HAMILTON: My proposal is to deal with the young man of 25 and under. I agree with my hon. Friend that we should go for the old rogues—of both sexes.

Mr. WIGNALL: I want to bear my testimony from the experience I have gained in a court of law. I can bring to my mind at least half-a-dozen cases in which this defence was set up, and in every case it was the elderly man, and not the young lad, even under 25. In regard to protection for young men up
to 25, I do not know what is the hon. Members' conception of the protection needed for youths in their walks of life, but I know that among the people with whom I have lived and been associated when they reach 25., and long before that, they are expected to be able to look after themselves and to live a clean and decent life. I say I do not remember any real discussion or division of opinion in the Committee as to the taking away of the defence of consent. Each Member of the Committee, whichever House he or she represented, was anxious to do the right thing and to amend the law in such a way that it would not produce the evil effects that have been so very much exaggerated here to-day.

Sir G. HAMILTON: The hon. Member refers to what was done in the Committee of which he was a distinguished member. Am I not right when I state that that very Committee added to Clause 1 something which is not now in the Bill? Could my hon. Friend, with his very full knowledge, tell us exactly what those words were, and what the effects were, and why his Committee added them?

Mr. WIGNALL: I have no recollection of them adding those words at that time. They may have been added, but I say that without referring to the Report I do not remember any very serious debate about taking away this defence of consent. On Clause 2 there was considerable debate, and there was a very strong trend of opinion in the evidence that the age should be raised to 18, and then there was a debate as to seventeen, and the unanimous opinion was reached that it was better to leave the age at 16 and take away the defence of "reasonable cause to believe that a girl was of or above the age of sixteen years," and I think I am right in saying to-day that if ever there has been a defence set up in law that has been abused it is this defence of "reasonable cause to believe."

Mr. CAUTLEY: What ground is there for saying that?

Mr. WIGNALL: I say that from common knowledge; first of all, from what we read and see for ourselves, and, secondly, from what we have come in contact with in courts of law and in police courts, and if the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) wants anything beyond that, I am unable to furnish it.

Mr. CAUTLEY: Does the hon. Member disagree with the juries'?

Mr. WIGNALL: I do not know what my hon. and learned Friend is in trouble about. I think he has a knowledge of the law.

Mr. CAUTLEY: And of juries.

Mr. WIGNALL: I will not argue with the hon. and learned Member more than to say that, as an hon. and learned Member, he has a full knowledge of the process of law and of the cases that have been tried in the Law Courts, and if he gave a fair opinion of the position to-day, he would agree with me that there has been no defence that has been so much abused and taken advantage of as this of "reasonable cause to believe." Have we not seen and heard of a man pleading this defence and saying, "She had her hair bobbed," and "She had long skirts on," and "She looked in every way as if she were sixteen," and the man was probably a person of 40? If I had my way in the law, I would have a Clause in that he ought to be taken out and horse-whipped, in addition to the penalty that the law provides, for even setting up or taking advantage of such a defence. We support this Clause in the Bill because we believe that it has been abused, and we want to take away the defence that is set up, and I do not believe it will have any ill-effect upon the young men of our day in the way that has been described. Do we not see vice rampant in our towns and cities to-day? Do we not see young girls along our streets everywhere, young girls that are being trafficked in? Have we no knowledge of the white slave trade that is rampant all around us? The white slave trade could not exist if it were not for those who allow their passions to take possession of them and wreck and ruin the girls of our homes to-day. No punishment can be too severe for such vagabonds and scamps that are in our towns and cities everywhere. We want to make it hard to do wrong and easy to do right, and we can only do that by making the law effective and strong where it has been ineffective and weak before. It is for these reasons that I do heartily support this Bill, and having sat upon the Committee, listened to the evidence, and taken part in the Debates, my only regret to-night is that the Bill
does not go so far as it ought to go, judging from the mass of evidence that we received as to the terrible effects of the evil things that we have to talk about here to-night. We are trying at least to deal with this question, and this Bill is an honest attempt, and I am glad that the Government have taken it over at last. It is a long-delayed Measure; it has been long deferred, it has been hindered in various ways, and probably it will be hindered again. I am willing to make safeguards, of course, so far as I am concerned, but I do not believe in attempting to create safeguards. Our own common knowledge and the information given to our boys at home ought to be the best safeguard.

Sir G. HAMILTON: And the girls.

Mr. WIGNALL: Yes, and the girls, and I believe that we and the parents are the greatest cowards in that direction, that we do not take them more into our confidence and explain the dangers that beset them in the world outside. In regard to the limit of 25 years of age, I am not with the opponents of the Bill at all, but I am prepared in Committee, so far as I am concerned, to consider any reasonable safeguard to protect the boys, and to protect the girls as well, as far as that is concerned, but I am not prepared to give even the boys full and free licence to do wrong. I hope the Bill will have a Second Reading, and that it will go into Committee, so that we may have a chance to debate in Committee something of the safeguards that are required, and which have been explained as being required to meet a real danger ahead of us.

Mr. J. F. GREEN: With some of the latter remarks of my hon. Friend—I hope he will allow me to call him my old and honourable Friend—the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall), I am thoroughly in sympathy, and it seemed to me that they formed a very strong argument against such a Measure as this. My hon. Friend said that the fathers and mothers ought to talk to the boys and the girls in their homes. That is exactly my view. I have no belief in promoting morality by Act of Parliament. Hon. Members may remember that many years ago—I remember it when I was a young man—a very distinguished and eloquent
prelate of the Anglican Church remarked that he would rather see England free than sober. I need hardly say that some fanatical people said that that distinguished Lord Bishop was in favour of promoting drunkenness. He was in favour of nothing of the kind, but what he did believe in was liberty and he believed that the promotion of morality was the duty of teachers of religion and ethics and not the duty of Parliament by making certain offences criminal. It was made a sort of reproach by the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), against my two hon. and gallant Friends who moved and seconded the Amendment to reject this Bill, that they were too young to remember certain things. I am not too young to remember. I am older than my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles, and I remember those incidents perfectly well, but I want to make a very strong protest against what is said with regard to some of us who believe it to be our duty to oppose legislation of this kind. An hon. Member of this House who is not present now, after certain action which we considered it our duty to take last year when this Bill was before the House, thought fit to go about saying that it was a lot of immoral men and old roues who were the only people who were opposed to this Bill in the House of Commons. I protest that those of us who oppose this Bill are just as much interested in the promotion of morality as those who support it. They have a right to their opinion, we quite agree, but we have the same right to oppose this Bill without being accused of being immoral people who have no concern in regard to the corruption of girls.
I agree with what the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean said with regard to the criminality of these offences, and that they are immoral, but I am surprised that a man of the age and experience of my hon. Friend does not know perfectly well that there are a number of girls, if not the majority, who are much more sexually advanced at a comparatively-young age than boys, and certainly any of us who have had any long experience of life must know that over and over again boys are tempted and seduced by girls, and it is not the boy who is the seducer, and I claim that boys of that age, at any rate, ought to be protected. Like the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham (Sir G. Hamilton), I have no
wish to protect disgusting old men who go about trying to get hold of girls, but I say that boys of 18, 19, and 20 are constantly led astray, and it is a perfectly monstrous thing, in my eyes, that they should not have the right of this defence. It is assumed by some of the supporters of the Bill that because, under the existing law, a man or boy has this right oil defence, therefore the judge and jury are bound to accept it. Of course, that is not so. We only claim that a man shall be able to put up that defence, and it is for the judge and jury to decide whether or not to accept it. Therefore, there is ample protection, for if the judge and jury do not think the man has a legitimate defence, well and good. My hon. Friend suggests that all those who have had experience are in favour of this proposed alteration of the law That is not in the least so. As was pointed out in the Debate last year by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, the majority of judges are, and certainly the majority of the distinguished representatives of the Bar in this House in that Debate were, entirely against taking away this right of defence. My hon. Friend rather sneered just now at the idea of these stories of girls getting themselves up to look older than they are. Let me inform him that only last year a case was tried before a judge and jury at one of the assizes where the judge had his suspicions aroused by the girl coming into court with her hair down and dressed in an extremely young manner. The judge put to her the question: "Were you dressed like that on the night in question when you say this offence was committed?" The reply was: "No." The judge said to the girl's mother "Take your daughter home during the luncheon interval and bring her back again; put her hair up, and dress her as she was at that time." They came back, and the jury at once acquitted the man, because when they saw the girl dressed like that they were agreed that the man had a legitimate ground for the belief that she was over age. Certainly we all know that there are a great many girls under 16 who constantly look several years over, especially if they dress up to it.
I feel bound, therefore, to support the Amendment put forward, and I do suggest that this House will make a very great
mistake if we try to legislate in this way, especially with regard to a question which has already been mentioned. I refer to the question of blackmail. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) said that during a certain period of his professional career, in one year he had experience of 200 cases of this sort. There was not one of them, he said, in Court where anything was said of blackmail. Of course not! If a man is blackmailed it does not come out in Court. If somebody comes to me and blackmails me, and I am foolish enough to pay, I pay up. The professional gentlemen who have cases of this sort in Court know nothing about that. Therefore, it seems to me to be a very feeble argument to say that the question of blackmail does not come out in Court. The whole object of paying blackmail is that it should not come into Court. It is no argument against those who say that this Measure would certainly, if this Clause were insisted upon in the Bill, open the door to a very large amount of blackmail. I hope that the House will reject the Bill until we get certainly a much more definite promise than we have had from the Government as to some mitigation of Clause 2.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I put in my plea most strongly that the House shall see that this Bill gets a Second Reading, and gets it at the earliest possible moment. I cannot help thinking that the speech to which we have just listened, as well as the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir G. Hamilton), really show that this Bill does deserve a Second Beading. May I put, as briefly as I can, the reasons why? I am sure everyone was exceedingly interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Altrincham, even if they did not agree with the whole of it, and no one could doubt the force and sincerity with which he put his arguments. Practically the greater part of the arguments of the hon. Member were addressed to what should be the Amendment of Clause 2; his criticism was very largely addressed against the Amendment which others considered might be made to Clause 2.
On the Second Beading of the Bill, is it really reasonable to ask this House not to pass a Bill because one person favours one Amendment of one Clause and objects to another Amendment really designed to
effect the same object? I am anxious at the present moment, as anxious as I can be, to see this Bill pass into law, and therefore, if the House will permit me, I should just like to point out how narrow is the point at issue at the present moment between those who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham, have been objecting to Clause 2 as it stands and those who are willing to try to meet him. If the point be so narrow, then at least there is no reason for refusing a Second Reading to the Bill. The hon. Member for Altrincham says that he is quite willing to allow the elderly roué to be laid by the heels, and so from that point of view the elderly roué can no longer plead reasonable cause as a defence. He is quite ready that that defence should be taken away from the elderly roué, provided that there is protection for the young man who knows that he may be committing a moral fault, but does not realise that he is also committing a fault against the criminal law. I hope I have put that quite clearly.
It has been said that those who have been anxious in promoting this Bill—and it is perfectly right—have as their prime object to get rid of the guilty person who really knows the criminal law, and knows that he may be committing an offence against it. For the most part, this kind of person is the elderly roué. Therefore, provided that we can get the real people who know the criminal law, and know that they may be committing an offence, laid by the heels, we are quite willing, or at least consent, that there should be a protection for the innocent young man who is innocent in so far as he does not know the criminal law. Therefore, may I point out to the House that, so far as the principle of the thing is concerned, the two sides are pretty nearly at one. It is only so far as the application of that principle is concerned that there is a difference. The hon. Member wants the principle to be applied by retaining the defence of "reasonable cause." People on the other side want to give protection, and if I understood it in the proper way, by applying Section 1 of the Probation of Offenders Act. What I would urge upon this House is that here we are at the Second Reading of the Bill and a discussion of the general principle of it. If the difference of those who object and
those who are promoting it is as slight as this, then, surely, there is no reason whatsoever—I am not referring to my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Major C. Lowther), but if I may say so without offence to him, the speech by which most Members of the House were chiefly impressed was that of the hon. Member for Altrincham, whose force and vigour in putting his objections we admit —if the difference between him and the promoters is so slight—there is no reason for opposing the Second Heading of the Bill.

Sir G. HAMILTON: I do not quite agree that the difference between us is slight. It is the difference between good legislation and bad legislation. My real point is that I am against both the Second Reading of this Bill and the hon. Member opposite. The Government has not given us any promise as to what they are going to do. If I could get a promise from them that they will meet us on Clause 2 of the Bill I will withdraw my opposition.

Mr. SHORTT: I thought I had said as clearly as possible that the Government are agreed that something should be done. [HON. MEMBERS: "What:"] But that having regard to the fact that there were two opposing forms of opinions as to the Clause, I thought it most desirable that I should not definitely decide between one or the other to-day.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It will be within the memory of the House that the Home Secretary and I are not always of the same mind in regard to matters of public welfare. But I am bound to say that this does seem to me a perfectly reasonable attitude to take up. Both sides are willing to amend Clause 2. This is the Second Reading. Both sides are willing to amend so as to try to meet on Clause 2. I do appeal to the House generally; is not really the Committee stage and the Report stage, with the Third Beading to follow, the proper places to discuss the best form of Amendment in order to meet the objects on which both sides are agreed?
I do not want—for my business is not that—to raise a controversy, but rather to allay it at the present time. Consequently, I am in a particularly peaceful frame of mind this afternoon. But may I just hint that my hon. Friend's position before the House is illogical. He
objects to Clause 1 because, he says, it is not in the form in which it was finally passed last year, and he objects to Clause 2 because it is in the form in which it finally passed this House last year. He cannot have it both ways. The point, however, is only a small illogicality. I do not want to lay stress upon it. Let us get to the main thing. Here we have two Amendments, both of them possible to a Clause, and we are on the Second Reading. Surely the Committee stage and Report stage are the places in which to decide between the comparative merits of these two kinds of Amendments when all are practically agreed upon the principle at issue? On this principle, the vast majority of us certainly are agreed upon.

Sir F. BANBURY: No!

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London says, "No, no," in regard to people being agreed. But really in matters of social reform, he generally, if I may say so, has the honour of forming one of a very small minority, and that encourages me in my statement that the vast majority are in agreement. The hon. Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) gave one or two general principles as to why he was opposed to the Bill as a whole. He said this was a movement in favour of asceticism, with which he was himself wholly out of sympathy, and which I think he said was dangerous, or, at any rate, was a bad move. He said that asceticism concentrated young men's attention upon games so that they might not be concentrated upon love affairs and the rest of it. If he is opposed to that kind of asceticism, I can only say I am perfectly in favour of it. I have had a certain amount of personal experience of what goes on in some Latin countries where there is not this movement in favour of that asceticism which he deplores, and I can assure him that the result there is not one that he would be delighted with if he came closer in contact with it. I can give him one instance, which, to my mind, was a terrible one, where in one of the schools where there was no movement in favour of asceticism, the father came and took away his son, a boy of 16 or 17, in the middle of the term for a week-end in a disorderly house that he might learn what life was. If it is
between these two kinds of movements, I am all in favour of asceticism, and of concentrating the attention of boys and young men upon games. As to the other point, he said that it was a Bill in favour of one sex against the other sex. I can only say again it is not a Bill at all in favour of one sex against the other sex. It is a Bill in favour of public welfare as a whole. What we really have to ask ourselves is this: Are there a larger number of cases of indecent assault and bad behaviour against young girls or against young boys, and if the overwhelming majority should be found to be against young girls, obviously that is the type of case which most needs dealing with.
Lastly, we are told by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Green) that he does not believe in morality by Act of Parliament. Of course, everybody knows you cannot make a man moral by Act of Parliament; in the sense that you cannot make him morally minded. But it is really an old game nowaday to profess that you cannot pass legislation which punishes a certain gross class of case of immorality or indecency. That has been the settled policy of this country for the last 50 years. Would the, right hon. Gentleman wish to repeal the whole of the Incest Acts and all the other Acts dealing with that class of subject? Certainly not. I am glad to see the right hon. Baronet agrees. To that extent then he would have men made moral by Act of Parliament. To object to the Bill on that ground is going contrary to the settled conscience and opinion of this country, and for that reason I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading, and then the objections to Clause 2 can be dealt with by Amendments on the Committee stage and the Report stage.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: May I offer my congratulations to the Government for bringing in and making a part of their programme the Bill which is at present before the House? I have great pleasure in supporting what has been said on this occasion by the Home Secretary, and one is proud to think that in the Speech from the Throne in February this matter was mentioned. One is proud to feel that one is English when such an important Measure is brought forward. I had no intention at first to take part in this Debate, because last
year I was not here when the previous Bill was brought before Parliament, but I felt that I could not let one or two things which have been said pass without offering some reply to them.
It was with great difficulty that I sat still when I heard some of the statements which were made by the hon. Member for Cumberland (Major C. Lowther). He suggested that this agitation arose by fits and starts chiefly owing to the efforts of the women's societies. I would like to remind the hon. and gallant Member that that is not the case, and if he belonged to as many women's societies as I do, he would know that this agitation has been going on for years and years, and it was only last year that we managed to get this Bill brought before Parliament. The hon. and gallant Member said that this Measure was the result of the agitation of unreasoning societies in America. It is like saying that any reforms we want are unreasonable. We feel that this is a reasonable Bill, and I think it is rather a slur on the work of women's societies to call it unreasonable.
The hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir G. Hamilton) referred to Clause I and asked if kissing would be considered as an act of indecency. He is a magistrate, and so am I, but I do not think any of us can remember a case of that kind being brought up for indecency. In this matter I think the Court ought to have a wide discretion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman further stated that this Bill was supported chiefly by ladies' societies. We prefer to call them women's societies. Hon. Members talk about men's organisations, and we would rather talk about women's, not ladies', organisations. They consist of all classes, and looking down the list it would be futile to suggest that these societies do not include some of the best workers of the country. They are not anti-men's societies. We simply want to do what is best for our country.
I think this is a reasonable Bill and it does not ask for too much. We have not had any legislation on this subject for 35 years on these lines, and with one or two exceptions I think this ought to be considered a non-controversial Measure. After all, it is based on the principle of the protection of the weak which is the underlying principle of English law. We support it because it tightens the law
and it does not support simply one point of view but all points. What is provided for one section of the community is also provided for the welfare of other sections. Girls between the ages of 15 and 16 need protection. At that age they develop a desire for individuality and independence and it is jus: at that time that the State ought to step in and give them protection. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) said we want to make it easy for them to do right and difficult for them to do wrong. On this point I should like to read one or two quotations. Not knowing a very great deal about this subject, I read the Report of the Joint Committee which sat in 1918 and 1920, and in the 1918 Report, Sir John Dickinson, for whose words we must all have respect, said:
If a man chooses to take upon himself the risk. I do not see why he should not be punished if he makes a mistake. I think the raising of the age would have a very deterrent effect.…With regard to the defence 'of reasonable cause to believe' I am satisfied myself that it has led to very many miscarriages of justice.
Before the Joint Select Committee of 1920. Mr. Bigham, representing the Commissioner of Police, said:
The Commissioner's view is that there should be, if I may use the expression, a clean cut at 16, and that any interference with girls under that age should be a criminal offence, and that the risk of it should rest with the man.
Mr. Biģham further referred to the question of dishonest defence and said:
Our experience generally is that the defence of 'reasonable cause is what? may call a dishonest defence, and that there is no ground for fearing that an innocent person will suffer from doing away with it. It is a defence which is constantly set up, and which appeals very easily to juries especially, and sometimes is strongest in the case where the victim suffers most. I mean that it very often happens that by the time the victim gives evidence at the court of trial she is in a condition which almost invariably makes her look a good deal older than she is, and it is therefore very easy to make an appeal to the jury by pointing to the girl and saying: You can judge for yourselves of her age.
I apologise for making those quotations, but they seem to me to supply an answer to some of the criticisms which have been made. I appeal to the House to allow this Bill to go through without a Division, because, if necessary, it can be amended later on. I agree that it would be possible to put in a proviso such as that
which was suggested by the Home Secretary, but I do hope that this Bill will be allowed to go through without much more controversy and without many Amendments being accepted.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I am very unwilling to let the Second Reading go through without offering a few words of explanation of the vote I intend to give in favour of the Second Heading. For many years I have spoken and agitated for a tightening up of the Criminal Law Amendment Acts. With regard to this particular Bill, it has given me a very great deal of perplexity, and I have the very greatest possible feeling of reluctance in supporting this Measure as long as it contains Clause 2 in any shape or form whatever. Personally, I am not prepared to be satisfied, as far as my own wishes are concerned, with such an Amendment as was proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir G. Hamilton). In view of what I believe to be the honest and very widespread idea in the country as a whole that this particular branch of the law requires to be amended, I think it will be wise for us to send this Bill to a Committee, and do the best we can with it there.
I am not altogether satisfied with the Bill on other points, because I do not think it goes far enough. There are a number of matters connected with this branch of the law which are left untouched by this Bill, and which might very well have been dealt with here. There is one point which has been mentioned to me which I think it would be impossible to deal with in this Bill, because I am afraid it would be outside the title of this Measure. There arc offences dealt with under the Incest Acts and other offences of that kind which are abhorrent to all of us, and I refer to that trafficking in the bodies and souls of human beings to the profit of others. I think one of the things which might do most to prevent offences of this kind would be to introduce the, punishment of flogging to a very much wider extent than at the present time in cases of the worst offences of this particular type.
I want to say a word or two with regard to my view of Clause 2. My objection to it is not based upon any particular necessity of defending the boy, but my objection is that it is contrary
to the whole spirit of British justice, and moreover that it is absolutely unnecessary and is not calculated to bring about any real reform. I will try and give shortly my reasons for that view. Let the House remember what we are dealing with here. A man may be convicted of many technical offences for which he is punishable and for which he is only punished by a fine or imprisonment, or other sentence inflicted upon him by the Court. In the case of a conviction under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, a man suffers a far greater penalty if his reputation is worth anything at all to him, and, thank Heaven! the very large percentage of the manhood of this country have reputations which are of value to them, no matter to what class of society they belong. Therefore you have to remember that when you convict a man under these Acts, you are damaging his reputation probably for life, and, at any rate, you are putting him under a very black cloud from which it would be very difficult for him to escape. Consequently you should exercise very particular care when you are dealing with the right of a man to defend himself under these Acts.
6.0 P.M.
A man is brought up on a charge of this kind. He has committed an immoral offence, but with that we have nothing to do. It will be admitted by the keenest supporters of this Bill, whatever view they may take on the matter of morality, that it is not advisable and not possible at the present moment that it should be made the law of this country that it is an offence against the law for a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman who is not his wife. Equally surely, we do not want a man to be put in that position I have described if that is the only offence of which he has been guilty. I agree that the law is justified in protecting the immature girl, even in spite of her consent. The person we are dealing with now is the accused man. The accused man, in the case I wish to put before the House, is a man who has every reason to believe that the girl is over the age. That man, therefore, so far as intention is concerned, is an absolutely innocent person, and blameless under the law of the country. Is it worth while, is it right or just, to convict him of an offence under these Acts on a mere technicality, namely, that he
was misled, and misled in spite of precautions, on a point which he could not decide for certain, namely, the age of the girl or woman in question? There might be something to be said for it if a great deal were going to be achieved by this change in the law, but inasmuch as nothing is to be achieved by it, could it not be better done in another way? This Clause, it is said, is for the protection of young, immature girls under 16.
The danger which has been mentioned by many, and which we have to beware of, is the case of the mature girl under 16 or the professional prostitute under 16 who is herself responsible mainly for the man committing this offence. You do not want to protect them. If you want to protect the innocent and immature girl do your legislation fairly, and say what you mean, namely, to legislate against seduction. One of the foolishnesses of our law at the present moment is that there is no penalty for seduction except under a legal fiction; the father may be able to claim against the seducer because of the fiction that thereby he has lost the services of his daughter. If you want to be honest over this, be reasonable over it. Listen to the other side. Consider whether it is not better to legislate against seduction rather than to legislate in such a way as to convict, and to convict in a way in which the accused person is ruined for ever, a man who has had no evil intentions and no intent against the law whatever.
I would like to say a word with regard to what has transpired in this Debate about those who are moving the rejection of this Bill. I disagree with the course they propose to adopt and with much of what they have said, but I was greatly impressed with the speech of the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), although I am perfectly sure he did not intend to convey the impression which his words did actually convey to me. That impression is typical of the way in which not only those who are opposing this Bill but those who criticise it are being and have been treated by many of those who have been unreasoning and fanatical supporters of hasty legislation of this kind. The right hon Gentleman said they were entitled to give their opinions in this House on this question. Has it ever been necessary to say that before? Does that not show the
spirit of fanatical unreasoning displayed by the supporters of hasty legislation of this kind? They condescendingly say that we are quite entitled to express our view, but they also convey their impression that if one is not a blackguard it shows he must be at least a fool. That is the way in which the critics of this Bill have been dealt with. I hope it will not be the spirit which will animate the supporters of the Bill in Committee, I hope they will show the broadest possible mind towards the critics and will give them every credit not only for being respectable people but for possessing that character which they have admitted them to possess on other occasions—not for being fools but for being some of the most careful and some of the most experienced people in matters of legislation who are to be found in this House.

Mr. KIDD: As in my opinion Clause 2 of this Bill cannot possibly be amended, I give that as my excuse for intervening in this Debate. Speaking with 25 years' experience in a large professional practice in the Criminal Courts, I hope I shall not be regarded as being without some qualification to discuss this particular Clause. Reference has already been made to the speech of the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) and I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place to hear what I desire to say with reference to his speech He said with regard to the defence under the present law to the effect that a girl looked like 16, that many who should not escaped conviction on such a defence. I am sorry to hear such a statement coming from one who is a lawyer. I have always understood that a man is presumed to be innocent until he has been proved to be guilty, and I have never heard of a man, and much less a lawyer deploring the fact that an accused person has not been convicted. The right hon. Gentleman further stated that this Bill had the support of those who are engaged in the administration of the criminal law of the land. The hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) quoted some remarks in this connection by Sir John Dickinson, but I think it comes to being pretty near a grave misrepresentation of the fact to say that this Bill has the support of those engaged in the administration of the law in this country. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could mention a single judge in support of that statement. He also, as
I understood, sought to convey the impression to the House that he had made a somewhat critical study of the. development of our law on this subject, and he twitted hon. Members who spoke before him with not being acquainted with the terms of the Act of 1885. I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman that to any lawyer who heard them his words would convey the impression that he himself entirely misappreciated the spirit of that law. Why is this defence that a girl looks 16 allowed? It recognises the fact that there is no uniformity in the maturity of the female sex. There is a vast variation in different cases, and that variation is dictated it may be by birth, it may be by race, or it may be by many other causes, and therefore the law very properly made the provision that any girl who looked like 16 had no case against a man for criminal assault where she had given her consent to the connection. I was particularly pleased to hear the singularly relevant observation of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. J. F. Green), who pointed out that not only had this defence to be put forward, but that it had to be substantiated to the satisfaction of the jury under the direction of a learned judge. I hope I am not behind other Members of the House in my desire to get rid of the evil at which the Bill is aimed, but I want to point out that the promoters of the Bill, in seeking to overtake it, are threatening to do injury to thousands of innocent people. I decline to subscribe to the doctrine that there is anything inevitably immoral in carnal intercourse between unmarried persons or that an act which is consecrated by the benefit of clergy is of necessity and always less innocent if it is committed without that benefit. As illustrating the danger of Clause 2 of this Bill, let me refer to two? cases which have come to my own knowledge. This is, I admit, a very delicate topic. I approach it reluctantly. But I am speaking not merely as a lawyer—I speak as a father with sons and daughters—jealous and proud of his daughters, but not unmindful of his duty to his sons.
Here are two cases which have come within my own knowledge. In Scotland we have a law providing that every poor person shall have the services of a lawyer, and every lawyer in turn, it matters not
what the quality of his practice may be, has to undertake that office- for one year. At a somewhat early stage in my career, when I held that office, a case came before me of a girl, aged 12 years and 3 months, who gave birth to twin children. A man was indicted, and, as lawyer for the poor, I acted for him. The man who was guilty was sentenced and rightly heavily punished. The next time I made the acquaintance of those twins was in a medical jurisprudence lecture-room in one of our universities, and it rather amused me to hear the learned professor expound a wonderful medical theory to account for the precocity of the mother. I ventured to point out to him that his theory was wrong, and indicated to him from my knowledge of the facts that the father of the mother of those children was a Turk. I suggested that this explained the youthful mother's precocity, the racial instincts having been transmitted from the Turk, and I think the professor agreed. Two and a half years later, when I was again lawyer for the poor, that same girl was involved in another case. She had risen from her bed and got into the bed of a sleeping man aged 22. I pleaded in defence that the girl had the appearance of being 16, but it was established that, while that was indeed the case, the man knew that she was under 16, and he was sentenced. It was a modified sentence, certainly, of six months' imprisonment. I only mention these cases to show the reason behind the law as it stands at present, affording as that law does the plea that the girl while not 16 may truly seem so, and these cases correspondingly condemn Clause 2 of the present Bill.
The law as it stands to-day gives all the protection that one can ask for to the female, and gives the corresponding protection which ought to be extended to the man. Let me state another ease as showing the absurdity of this Clause as applied to Scotland. In Scotland a girl may marry at the age of 12, with or without the consent of her parents. A boy may marry at the age of 14, with or without his parents' consent. I would ask hon. Members to be reasonable. Why is there this disparity in age? Does it not confirm the plea put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for North Cumberland (Major Lowther) and the hon. Member who spoke after him, that maturity in a girl comes earlier than in the case of a
boy. That is the raison d'êetre of the difference between the marriageable ages in Scotland. Suppose a case of illicit intercourse between a girl approaching 15 and a boy of, say, 18. Then, under the law in Scotland, if the man marries that girl, there is no illegitimacy; the child is legitimate as a matter of course; but they were not married when the act of intercourse took place, and, therefore, if this Clause is allowed to stand, it would be possible for a father to be prosecuted for the act of intercourse which begot the child with his legal wife.
I know that that will appear to some to be an exceptional case, but it is not so very peculiar as one might think. There are many of these cases, and I would ask hon. Members to believe me when I tell them that, although they may not be personally acquainted with them, that is due to the fact that they have had no occasion to make acquaintance with them. The lawyer who has had a large experience, and has been meeting with these cases almost week in and week out over a period of years, is a man whose views ought to be considered with some respect. I do not ask for any respect for my views as personal views, but these views and experience that I am narrating are common to very many lawyers throughout the country, at any rate north of the Tweed. For these reasons I say that, while this is the first time I have ever opposed the Home Secretary, on this occasion I must. The fact that Clause 2 stands as it does is in itself a sufficient proof that the Bill did not originate with the Home Secretary or the Law Officers of the Crown. I am sure that had they been charged with its original authorship it would have paid much more respect than it does to the law as it stands to-day. They would have realised the reason for the provision with regard to this plea that the girl seemed to be 16, and would not have sought to subvert a plea based on natural law, and framed to meet the variations in the different types of girl due to different causes, which I have already indicated. I therefore regret with others that this Bill has been adopted by the Government.

Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: I intervene in this Debate because I am, I think, the only Member in the House who was a Member of the Joint Com-
mittee of the Lords and Commons which considered this question in 1920, and the House will allow me to say that we had other points before us beside this. It was suggested to us that we should even extend the age beyond 16, and there were other matters which do not form part of this Bill. We examined a great number of witnesses of all kinds, and in the result we were unanimous as to the first three Clauses of this Bill. There was no difference between us, and the House has now before it, therefore, the unanimous recommendation of the Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons on this Bill. I had some doubt in my mind as to the plea of reasonable cause before I heard the evidence, but, after hearing all those who were capable of forming an opinion on the matter, I came strongly to the opinion that the plea of reasonable cause should be done away with so far as girls under 16 are concerned.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) has dealt with the lawyer's view of just and reasonable cause, but perhaps I may be allowed to say that it is owing to the efforts of the lawyers who defend these prisoners that this just and reasonable cause is proved to the satisfaction of the judge, rather than to the innocence of the prisoner. I am not at all surprised that the eloquence of my hon. Friend, if he were defending a prisoner, would succeed in convincing a magistrate or judge that the prisoner believed a woman to be over the age of 16 when the offence was committed. Perhaps I may also be allowed to say that, before the time when children were protected up to the age of 13, there were some terrible cases of criminal assault upon young girls. They were brought purposely into brothels and bad houses to encourage the horrible thoughts and acts of wicked roués. I think I am right in. saying that, since this Clause has been included in the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the number of assaults upon young children under the age of 13 has been very considerably reduced. My argument is that, if we extend the age to 16, and do away with the plea of reasonable cause, it will be found that men will not commit offences, because they know too well that if they do so they will be liable to prosecution and will not get off.
Do we not want to protect young girls? Is not the young girl's virtue her prin-
cipal asset; and is there not a difference between the destruction of the virtue of a girl and the destruction of the virtue, if I may repeat the phrase, of a boy? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Perhaps hon. Members will wait a moment. If a criminal assault is committed on a young girl and she becomes pregnant, she is ruined for life; but a young man may commit any number of offences without suffering in a similar way. Too often in such cases men will deny their liability, and not be ashamed to get young girls into trouble, and lawyers know very well that they are put up to defend these men, too often successfully, in respect of an offence or a crime for which they ought properly to have been convicted. The hon. Member for Linlithgow quoted two or three cases, and I was surprised at his quoting them, because, in two of them at any rate, the defendant was justly and properly convicted, and why the hon. Member put them as illustrations passes my comprehension.
Let me mention a case that has happened quite recently within my own knowledge as a magistrate. A child who, on the evidence of the police, was 14 years of age, met a man in the street. She went to cinemas with him, and by and by he committed a criminal assault. He did so a second time, and after a time he said to her, "What is your age?" She said, "Guess," and he said, "Well, between 18 and 19." She said, "Right." It would be put forward in defence of the man, in those circumstances, that he reasonably believed that the girl was over 16 at the time he committed the offence. I could go on quoting such cases, but it is not necessary in this House. I know, however, that the House likes to have evidence based on experience, so I may say that I have been associated with institutions and societies for a great number of years, and am able to speak with some degree of confidence in reference to this question.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir G. Hamilton) spoke of the subject of blackmail, but did not quote any instances. He did not tell us that he knew personally, or had read in any satisfactory way, that there had been any of these offences committed. Let me tell him what my experience is. I have been for 33 years chairman at Portsmouth of the National Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Children; I am, and have been for many years a member of the central executive committee in London of that society; I am chairman of the Probation Committee of Justices at Portsmouth, and I have been a magistrate for some 32 years. During all my grownup life I have been interested in the welfare of children. I never heard of such a case, and I maintain that my hon. and gallant Friend has no justification whatever for a statement of the kind that he made. It is pure imagination. I am perfectly certain that my hon. and gallant Friend believes it himself, but he has been misinformed. He quoted as a fact and as a matter of law that if a girl was kissed by a boy, that might be held to be an offence under this Measure. It is alt very well for my hon. and gallant Friend to shield himself by saying that he is no lawyer, but such a thing is absurd beyond conception.

Sir G. HAMILTON: May 1 point out that it has been held in law that for a young man to take hold of a girl and kiss her comes within the description of a criminal assault—an indecent assault?

Sir T. BRAMSDON: The clear, cold, simple fact of a boy kissing a girl is not an indecent assault. There may be other circumstances connected with it which, coupled with the kissing, bring about the indecency. I have known many cases as a lawyer in which an accusation of this kind has been made, and the charge has always been that of common assault, and never criminal assault unless there have other circumstances which would justify that suggestion. I want to feel that young girls up to 16 are protected against themselves, and if men know that they must not assault a girl under the age of 16, they will not do it, and you will not get these cases. It will act, as other cases have acted before, as a deterrent, and it is as a deterrent that this Bill is brought in, and if we can succeed in preventing some of these cases we shall not have wasted our efforts.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: My professional experience has not included cases of this kind, but I think anyone who has lived in great towns and knows the life of great masses of people in industrial districts cannot but sympathise entirely with the principle embodied in the Bill. We have heard from opponents of the Bill that its supporters are guilty of unreason
and fanaticism. I should like to ask where the unreason and fanaticism have been to-day, because I have never heard such statements as have been advanced as arguments against the Bill. We were told by one hon. Member that just as some Archbishop would rather have England free than England sober, so we ought rather to wish England free than England moral. He said the State and Parliament have nothing whatever to do with moral offences They ought absolutely to leave them aside so that morality could be taught by fathers and mothers in the home. If he carries that to the logical conclusion at which he was aiming it means that every sexual offence should go absolutely unpunished, and if a girl suffers rape, for instance, we have to shake our heads and deplore that in the home in which the offender was brought up he did not receive better instruction from his father and mother. If unreason and fanaticism mean anything surely they are symbolised by an argument of that nature. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir G. Hamilton) says he has always hated and opposed feminism and therefore, this being a case of conflict between men and women, or boys and girls, I suppose he ought to vote with the boys. Of course it is ludicrous. There is no conflict of interest in this case. It is the interest of both sexes, it is the interest of the whole country that a Bill of this sort should pass. It seems to me that opponents of the Bill are living in a world of illusions and delusions. They seem to imagine that the normal case of sexual offence is a case of blackmail; that it is an ordinary thing for young men to be blackmailed, and that it is the most extraordinary thing for any genuine sexual offence to occur at all, whereas I think most hon. Members will agree with what was put forward by the last speaker, that for one case of blackmail, or a put-up job, there are hundreds of cases of real offences of this nature. The hon. Member (Mr. Kidd) referred with a certain amount of sentiment and enthusiasm to Scotch law, and said girls could marry at 12 and boys at 14 in that country. That was in accordance with natural law, and we ought not to interfere with a natural law of that character. He also alluded to marriage as simply giving a
conventional value or stamp to relations of sexual intercourse, and therefore 6exual intercourse without marriage being a condition precedent was, after all, nothing so very reprehensible. Does any hon. Member wish to see his own girls married at 12 or his boys at 14, or that they are to have sexual intercourse under 16? The whole thing is absolutely abhorrent when you really face the facts of the situation and are not led away by simple a priori reasonings founded on the intricacies and arcana of Scotch law.
Turning to the actual Clauses of the Bill, I cannot admit as a lawyer that kissing is regarded as an indecent assault. I think my hon. Friend when he made that allegation really must have been under a misapprehension, and that many other circumstances must have accompanied the kiss to bring it within that description. The same hon. Member said it would be regarded as an indecent assault for a man to put his hand upon a girl; that happens so often and so lightly; it might happen, for instance, when they were dancing together, and that would be construed as an indecent assault. Of course, the idea is preposterous. No such charge could be made, and if there were such a charge no conviction, obviously, would follow. With regard to the second Clause, we may fairly welcome the promise which the Home Secretary has given to consider reasonable Amendments to it, but that is a question of detail. My hon. and gallant Friend said he was championing the case of the boys. The true case of the boys is to keep away from girls under 16.
He also said Parliament ought not to allow a discretion to be vested in any tribunal on questions of this sort, and that we ought to take the discretion into our own hands. That is against all the principles of criminal law, because we in Parliament do not know the facts of any particular case. All we can do is to confer a wide discretion on the judges and magistrates who decide these cases. The wider the discretion, the better it is, and the more they can consider all extenuating circumstances which the alleged offender can bring forward. Under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, it would be possible, if this Bill were passed in its present form, for an offender who could put up sound extenuating cir-
cumstances to be conditionally discharged or to be let off practically without any punishment whatsoever. Any evidence which a young man, or an old man, wished to bring forward to show how he was misled or led on by the girl, it would be perfectly proper for him to bring before the tribunal, and if the tribunal attached weight to those extenuating circumstances, of course, they could be considered in any sentence which was passed.
Then we have our old friend the appeal to liberty. We were told that the Bill was an offence against English liberty. Liberty to do what? Liberty to commit sexual offences upon young girls, liberty to have carnal intercourse with female idiots, liberty to keep brothels. Is that the sort of liberty we want to preserve? It seems to me that an appeal of that sort is mistaking the shadow for the substance and disregarding the real facts of the present problem. I think the Bill is to be welcomed. I am glad it is supported by Members of all parties. I believe that to bring in a Bill at this time is a sign that we arc progressing in our outlook; that the whole nation is progressing in its judgment, upon moral questions because Parliament is not going ahead of public opinion in this Bill. Public opinion is ahead of Parliament. We are trying to catch up with public opinion, and it gives one hope that, after all, there is such a thing as moral progress in the world and such a thing as the ascent of man.

Mr. HOHLER: I do not propose to vote against the Second Reading, because I shall wait to see what Amendment is made to Clause 2, which is the Clause to which I object. I am far from satisfied with the very vague statement of the Home Secretary. There has been talk about liberty to keep brothels. I do not think I have heard any germane argument in favour of liberty to keep brothels.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: I never said the hon. Member wished to retain liberty to keep brothels. What was said was that the Bill offended against the principle of liberty, and one of the provisions in the Bill refers specifically to the keeping of brothels.

Mr. HOHLER: My hon. Friend surely knows that it is quite unnecessary in his speech to refer to something to which no
one has objected. I honestly do not believe, from what I have heard, that anyone desires to prevent any thing being done to protect girls of 16. Certainly it is not my desire. I am only too anxious to protect them. But, as stated by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir T. Bramsdon), it is not a question of assault at all. The legislation proceeds, and has proceeded, on the assumption of consent, and, therefore, when you speak of assault, it is really quite an error, and what we really have to consider, with a little fairness, is what Clause 2 means. I candidly admit that I see considerable objections. The hon. Member (Mrs. Wintringham) made an admirable speech and addressed the House in a much more reasonable frame of mind in regard to what was just than some of my hon. Friends. My difficulty is this: I am quite willing to afford every protection, but the difficulty is, that the interval between, say, 15 years and 364 days, or whatever it may be, and 16 years and a day is very small.
It may be that the facility offered to the prisoner is too great. It may be that some guilty men may get off. I do not think we are concerned much with that, but I should like the Home Secretary to consider whether or not he could make the gulf between 16 and reasonable cause greater. For instance, if you say it is an offence—unless you have reasonable cause to believe she was over 17, you would get a gulf clearly fixed, and it would be much more difficult for the man to escape in cases of this kind. In every case everyone really ought to know whether he is committing a criminal offence or not. Here there is no such standard set up. You are setting up an absolute standard in regard to a girl of the age of 16 who may be a day under, a month, six weeks, or more. But really she only knows her age by hearsay, unless she has seen her birth certificate. Practically at that age it is true to say only the parents know what the age is. When you are creating a criminal offence, for which a man may get two years and his character gone, are you to set up an absolute standard depending on a birth certificate, and is the man's guilt to depend on that? I am willing to alter the law, and I am willing, if a proper Amendment is made in this respect, to set up some intelligible standard which everyone may know whether he knows the girl and her family or not. I will assume that she is to him a com-
plete stranger. Surely, then, we ought to set up some standard for him so that he may have reasonable means of knowing as to whether or not, in having carnal connections with her, he is committing an offence. I am not one of those who pretend for a moment, it would be ridiculous to pretend, that actual con nection between the sexes is wrong; but if you are going to set up some standard, it should be a standard which to the man would be reasonably clear, and which would enable him to judge. I suggest, therefore, you should make the interval greater. If he commits an offence when he has no reasonable cause to believe that the girl is of the age of 17 or over, he would be able to know, when he is subsequently charged, that he has done wrong, and that he had reasonable cause to know that he had done wrong. Ho cannot ask for the girl's birth certificate; he cannot get the information. It may be, in the circumstances in which the oftence occurred, that you might do a grave injustice to a man who never intended to do the least harm to a girl under the age of 16, and yet he might find himself in a criminal Court. He is taken to the Court, and he does not know whether he has committed a criminal offence, because there is no proper evidence of the girl's age. He has to wait until the case is brought before the magistrate and the birth certificate is produced. That is my objection to the Bill in its present form.
I desire to protect the girl; everybody who has spoken desires to do so. I do not believe in the taunts of those who say they are strong supporters of the Bill. The best way for them to get a Second Beading of the Bill, without difficulty, would have been to set their minds to consider what is the standard to be set up. I do not agree with the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham (Sir G. Hamilton). I do not think that the youth of twenty-one should be put in a different position under the criminal law than a young man of twenty-five or thirty. There ought to be one law for all, rich and poor alike. I hope that when this Bill goes to Committee some reasonable standard will be set up which will protect the man, to some degree. If that is not done I shall vote against the Bill on the Third Beading. I shall not vote for the Bill to-day.
One of the reasons why I shall not vote for it on Second Reading is that it must not be forgotten that this Bill has been before the House previously. I do not say whether I agreed or disagreed with the Amendment then made. It is sufficient to say that I did not vote for it. There was an Amendment to the first Clause of the Bill when it was last before this House, which made it an offence in the girl equally as in the man. That went through Committee upstairs by a majority, and it came down on Report, and was passed by a majority. I did not vote for it, as I had certain views about it. What we do require from the Home Secretary on introducing the present Bill, is some explanation why the decision of the House of Commons in Committee and on Report has been ignored. It does not seem to me that the action of the Home Secretary tends to show that he is going to deal very sympathetically with this important matter, on which I found my whole judgment, namely, in regard to Clause 2. It does not seem to me that the Home Secretary is going to help us much, and if he does not, I shall vote against the Bill.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The last speaker has suggested an Amendment to Clause 2, which I trust the Home Secretary will take into careful consideration. It would go a very long way to meet the views of some of those who are opposed to the Bill. I could support quite readily an Amendment to raise the age. I want the age of consent to be seventeen, and the age of "reasonable cause" to be seventeen. I am not like right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not distrust British judges and juries. I trust them. They have the case before them. They know the facts in the particular case, and they see both the parties. It is a dangerous thing to make an abstract rule which admits all cases. The hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) has said that the Commissioner of Police states that the defence of "reasonable belief" was nearly always a dishonest defence. Of course, it is nearly always a dishonest defence. It is often the only defence the man has, and he will always set it up. Every man suggests it in these circumstances, and in nearly every case the judge and jury know it is a dishonest defence, and they give no weight to it. It is always set up, and it is always negatived.
I do not agree with the people who suggest, as the Seconder of the Amendment suggested, that we should not legislate upon such matters. I think we should legislate upon them; but one of the faults that I find with this Bill is that many important aspects are missed out. Last Session, when this was introduced as a Private Bill, not only was there an Amendment put in, but there was an important new Clause, which I proposed, and which was accepted by the promoter of the Bill in the House. The hon. Member for North Leeds (Major Farquharson), who had charge of the Bill, accepted the new Clause, and it was carried by an almost overwhelming majority. The Leader of the House voted for it. Most Members of the Government voted for it. Most Members of the Labour party voted for it. I have here a paper called the "Shield," a review of moral and social hygiene, which gives the history of the origin of this Bill. The paper has been sent to me. It calls it "Our Bill." It goes on to say:
The Criminal Law Amendment Bill was wrecked in the House of Commons.… The Bill was deliberately wrecked by those in the Commons who are determined not to give girls under 16 effective protection.
Then they proceed to blame their own supporters who were in charge of the Bill for accepting the new Clause. They blame me, the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and several other Members for supporting the new Clause for the purpose, they say, of defeating their Bill. This is a most reprehensible and unfair statement, after the new Clause had been accepted by the promoters of the Bill. It is not conducting the criticism of Parliamentary business with any justice or fairness. When people have themselves accepted a Clause, they turn round, repudiate their agents, and say that the Clause was put in for a nefarious purpose. I had the curiosity when I got this paper to read other matters which it contained. It mentions, in respect to the new Clause, that a certain Member of Parliament was taken to task because she voted against the Clause to include women within the scope of Section II of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, which at present only refers to men. Then it goes on to say that
this particular Section in the Act of 1885 is to he found in most of what you might call the Anglo-Saxon countries, Austria-
Hungary, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Bulgaria, and the State of New York and most of the Swiss Cantons, but in the Latin countries there is no such law.
The particular Section, Section II of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, is directed against gross acts of indecency between male persons. The Amendment I proposed sought to extend that to female persons. Then you get this extraordinary statement from those who are promoting this Bill, and who have jeered at the idea that this particular Bill may be used for the purpose of blackmail:
It is slowly being recognised that these laws provide the most fertile source of blackmail against both normal and abnormal men; that the offences are extremely difficult either to prove or disprove, and that modern scientific opinion is opposed to laws which attempt to punish very severely, not only the vicious pervert, but also the invert.
Then they quote from Mr. Havelock Ellis, who has gone deeply into these matters, and who objects to these cases of gross indecency being made a penal offence.
These very peculiar people express the view that that is the right attitude. I gather from them that the promoters of this Bill are prepared to put us in the condition of Italy, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and other places, and to repeal all legislation against this particular kind of offence. It may be that they are right, but it is a very extraordinary point of view, because these offences are the beginning of decadence in all nations. When once these offences creep in and spread— the extent of their spreading in this City of London can be seen by the enormous development of the cocaine evil which is one of the concomitants of them—it is a very bad thing for any nation. Anyone who knows anything about this particular branch of the Criminal Law knows that the nervous state of the victims of these vicious practices results in their flying to these dangerous and damnable drugs, and it seems to me an extraordinary thing that the promoters of this Bill, after they Had accepted my Amendment, and had let it go through the House, when it came to another place, they wrote to a number of Peers, including the Law Lords, protesting against the new Clause. I have here their statement and it is practically an invitation to the Peers to throw out the new Clause which was put in in this House. They say that they wrote a
letter to a selected number of Peers, stating that they protested against a serious Amendment of the law which had been put in by the Commons "in so ill-considered and hasty a fashion," and they practically invited the Lords to dispose of the new Clause, with the result that they lost their Bill.
7.0 P.M.
I do not believe that the view expressed by these particular people are the views of the vast mass of the people of this country. I know that they are not the views of the people of Glasgow, and Scotland generally. I warned the supporters of the Bill to be very careful not to commit themselves to certain views that are expressed on this question by those who write in a paper of this sort. I cannot imagine anything more dreadful or more wrong than that the legislation which we have enacted for hundreds of years against this particular vice should be made null and void, as in some of the Latin countries. There is one further matter which I wish to see added to the Bill. Firstly, I will deal with the total destruction of the present defence of reasonable belief that is effected by Clause 2 of this Bill. I would much rather see the age of consent raised than leave in this Clause as it stands. There arc ghastly women who carry on a nefarious trade of this kind. Time and again they get some poor, wretched young girl, whom they practically farm out, and upon the proceeds of whose shame they live. If you are going to have this particular Clause without having in it some escape of the kind provided at present for a man who is innocent, and who has had sexual relations with a girl who to all intents and purposes is a woman, then these ghastly procuresses and some of these souteneurs, who come from Continental parts and live on the earnings of shame, would make it their business to obtain mature-looking girls. There would be a run upon the mature-looking girls under the age of consent. They would manufacture evidence of some kind to show that they were over age, and this would add blackmail of the most horrible description to the other evil.
A good deal of that goes on now. The ramifications of the blackmailing fraternity are some of the most extraordinary things in criminology. You never hear of them, but a private inquiry
agent to whom, at one time, I expressed surprise at their being able to procure evidence of misconduct and adultery against a husband who had been at a holiday coast place told me that the Scotsman on holiday was fair game for the blackmailing fraternity. We have a very just law in Scotland which gives equality between the sexes in marital relations. We have had it for hundreds of years. It has often been objected to in England when a change of law has been suggested. Where a man has been unfaithful to his marriage vows, the wife can divorce him, and perfectly justly so, in my opinion. I asked this inquiry agent how they got the evidence against these men on holiday, and he told me there was a regular chain of blackmailers, who made it their practice to get in touch with the women of loose living in the various watering-places in England. They made it their duty to discover who their clients were, especially those who came from North of the Tweed.
Thereafter, following the lapse of a month or two, the woman having supplied the information, some disreputable solicitor would write, having ascertained in Scotland the state of the man's affairs. If the man were only a clerk or a person of small means, they would take no notice of it. If, however, he were a man of substantial property, they would then write to him, making a charge that he had seduced a particular woman, and demanding such a sub-tantial sum of money as would not break him, but which he would be likely to pay rather than have a scandal. If he failed to do so, they would take the opportunity of informing the wronged spouse as to the misconduct of her husband, and she would then be provided with the necessary evidence for a divorce. It sounded incredible, like a tale out of the Arabian Nights, but there were the facts in this particular case and in other cases. The blackmailing fraternity get their gain cither by selling their evidence or suppressing it. There is a great organisation for that in this country, and if this Clause is passed without providing any possibility of escape, it will lead to a tremendous power for blackmail being put into the hands of one of the most evil and vile sections of the community.
There is one other omission in this Bill, and I think an attempt should be made to set it right. We have heard a great
deal about the girls, and I do not agree with the hon. Member opposite who said that there was not the same ruin for a boy who began a life of immorality young as for a girl. He said that a girl was liable to have a child, but this Bill does not deal with that and is not limited to these cases. I believe in an equal moral code for both sexes. I believe it is just as demoralising for a boy of tender years, and just as likely to bring him to ruin, if he is early initiated into sexual error as it is for a girl, and the psychological effect is just as damaging. I have known more than two or three cases of young boys, of from 12 to 14 years, who have been taken advantage of by women of more than double their age and even older than that. I think endless cases could be discovered of the initiation of boys into vicious practices by middle-aged people. The horrible thing is this, that once a boy starts he becomes a public danger; he has got no restraint. Once a boy of from 13 to 14 is initiated into vice, he goes on. He will be the boy that he struck at by the Bill as drafted. I have had to defend many cases, often of violent conduct by young lads; and hon. Members would be astonished how often boys of from 16 to 18 or 19 have been concerned. If you inquire into the history of these cases you will find that the boys were earlier initiated into a life of vice by older women. I think, if you are going to pro mote morality, that a Clause should be added extending the same protection to young boys under 16 or 17 as to young girls. Hon. Members will agree that there is no sadder or more graphic description in literature than that of the young man void of understanding who is waylaid by the strange woman—
Passing through the street near her corner, and he went the way to her house,
In the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night:….
For she hath cast down many wounded, yea strong men have been slain by her.
Her house is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death.
I wish to see these young men protected, and if you make this Statute equally apply to both sexes you will do a tremendous lot to promote morality and sexual purity. A great deal of the vice which exists is engaged in by boys of comparatively tender years, who are led astray by those who often would not submit to the em-
brace of a full-grown man, and who compound their consciences with the youth of their co-delinquent. I trust that an Amendment of the kind I have suggested will be accepted in Committee, together with an Amendment making an appreciable gap for the defence of reasonable cause of belief—that is, if a man has reason to believe that a girl was 17 or even 18. You must leave something to the discretion of the judge and jury to deal with an individual case. With the Statute amended on the lines I have indicated, and after putting in the new Clause that was passed by a large majority last year, the Measure would be of immense benefit in protecting all young people. The first Clause of the Bill protects both sexes. It says:
It shall be no defence to a charge or indictment for an indecent assault on a child or young person under the age of sixteen to prove that he or she consented to the act of indecency.
If you extend that to the second Clause, and if you add the other Amendment to which I have referred, you will pass a wise piece of legislation.

Mr. FILDES rose—

Mr. SHORTT: May I appeal to the House to let us have the Second Reading now?

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir FREDERICK BANBURY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Powers of the Board of Trade under 10 & 11 Geo. 5, c. 74.)

It is hereby declared that the powers of the Board of Trade under the said Act of 1920 extend to the said exhibition notwithstanding any 6uch alteration as is hereinbefore referred to in the proposed place and date thereof.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. MOSLEY: I desire to move to add, at the end of the Clause, the words
Provided that in the employment of labour on the necessary work of construction in connection with the said exhibition,
priority shall be given to the claims of ex-service men and of local labour.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will recognise that I only came into the Chair a moment ago and that I have not had an opportunity of studying his Amendment. I am afraid his Amendment is out of order, because the object of this Bill is to provide a guarantee against loss resulting from the holding of a British Empire Exhibition. Therefore the hon. Member cannot move an Amendment which deals with the employment of labour. I must rule the Amendment out of order.

Mr. MOSLEY: May I say, on that point, that this was debated on the Second Reading, but I do not base my case on that ground. As I understand it, the position is that the taxpayer is guaranteeing this exhibition against loss, but in return for that guarantee certain obligations were entered into by the contractor. Principal among those obligations was an undertaking to employ ex-service labour. That has not been done, and I drew attention to this omission on the Second Reading. Am I therefore not entitled to argue that this House should not extend the liability into which it has entered unless specific undertakings are given that labour will be employed in the manner originally agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: It is not for me to express an opinion on what happened when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair. I am quite certain, however, that the Amendment is not in order at this stage. I think it may be possible for the hon. Member to vote against the Third Reading, or to move the rejection of the Bill at that stage because he does not think it goes far enough. An Amendment now, however, must be within the scope and title of the Bill. It does not come within that scope, and therefore I rule it out of order.

Clause 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Captain W. BENN: On a point of Order. As this Bill involves a guarantee of money, is it competent for the two stages to be taken on the same day?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a misapprehension. This Bill does nothing more than remove the doubt which has arisen in reference to the powers of the Board of Trade under the original Act, in view of two changes—one a change of date and the other a change of place. The original Act said London, whereas it is now proposed that the exhibition should take place at Wembley. Those are the sole points in the Bill, and consequently there is no guarantee of money in it at all.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Can we have a definite assurance that this date will not be changed again?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I can only say that I think that the provisions of this Bill as now drafted cover any possible change.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I gave an undertaking on the Second Reading, when a question was asked, that I would make a short statement on the Third Reading, and, with the permission of the House, I shall be glad to do so. There were two points raised on the Second Reading by the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley). The first related to the employment of local labour, and the second to the employment of ex-service men. As I explained to him, in accordance with a reply which was given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on 6th April, local men would, from the mere fact of geography, have a certain priority. With regard to ex-service men, the reply was given, I think, to the hon. Member for East Bradford (Captain Loseby) by myself that an arrangement had been come to with the contractor that if and so far as labour was not transferred by the contractor from other contracts which were finished at the time, then he would engage labour at the Tavistock Street Employment Exchange, and, in accordance with our regular practice at Exchanges, this arrangement is subject to the usual preference for ex-service men. I informed the hon. Member for East Bradford that only a small proportion had been so engaged, and that I would
make further inquiries. I have made these inquiries. I have had the opportunity personally of interviewing the manager of the Exhibition and also the representative of Messrs. McAlpine, the contractors.
The position shortly is this. The contractors are under contract to finish the Stadium by the 1st April next. The formal opening is to take place in April. They are, therefore, pressing the work on, and, in fact, are employing night shifts as well as day shifts on the work. The second point is that the work at present is largely of a preliminary character, and only some 800 men are engaged. These are largely foremen, experienced nucleus, and semi-skilled men, and they have been transferred mainly from other jobs which Messrs. McAlpine have had in hand which have just come to an end. The House will bear in mind that the exception of transferred men was expressly made in my answer to the Member for East Bradford. The contractors anticipate that, when the preliminary stages are completed, a much larger amount of labour will be engaged up to several thousands. The number of ex-service men to date is, roughly, 50 per cent. of such workers as have been engaged, even when the necessity of having nucleus men and experienced men is remembered, and the contractors anticipate that, as the number of unskilled men engaged on this work increases, the proportion of ex-service men will be steadily and substantially augmented. I thought it right, in view of the questions which were raised, to go into the matter very thoroughly, and I hope that the House will think that this is a satisfactory explanation.

Mr. MOSLEY: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the courtesy which has extended to the questions which I put to him, but may I urge on him that, as the work develops, he will get the contractor to take this matter into serious consideration. The first priority for unskilled labour resides in the man who combines the capacity of ex-service man and local man. I agree that an ex-service man should have priority over non-ex-service local labour. I would suggest that the order of priority should fall into three categories. First, ex-service local men; second, ex-service men: and third, local labour which is
not ex-service. I should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he will urge those considerations upon the authorities responsible, and, although he might divide specifically the question of local labour from ex-service men, I would urge him that this locality is bearing the brunt of the Exhibition which has been dumped down in the neighbourhood, and so far has not got any compensating advantages, and, again, that the employment of local labour is an economy by saving the necessity for additional housing accommodation and by saving travelling expenses.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Beading read.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is purely a Consolidation Bill. It in no respects alters the existing law. The Acts which are consolidated are the following: The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1910, the Agricultural Land Sales (Restriction of Notices to Quit) Act, 1919, in so far as it applies to Scotland, Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1920, which applies to Scotland, the Agriculture (Amendment) Act, 1921, and the relevant Sections of the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Act, 1921. The Bill contains in the margin opposite to each Clause a statement of the source or sources from which the Clause is derived. The question of consolidation of the law relating to the subject of agricultural holdings was raised originally in another place by the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and Lord Ancaster, speaking there, indicated on my behalf that a Bill such as this would be prepared. The desirability of such a Bill, I think, is obvious. I do not need to occupy the time of the House in arguing the matter. A Bill accordingly was prepared and has been considered by the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons upon Consolidation Bills. From their Report, which is available to Members of the House, it appears that, in their view, this Bill accurately consolidates the existing law.
A number of Amendments were made by that Committee. The Committee's Report points out that a Clause in the Bill, as originally introduced dealt with allotments, reproducing Section II of the Agriculture Act, 1920. That Section the Committee thought should be omitted in view of the introduction of an Allotment Bill in another place where the matter could be dealt with more properly and more relevantly, and the Amendments made by the Committee, though they seem to be extensive in number in so far as they are not due to the omission of that particular Clause, which is to be inserted in another Bill, are purely drafting Amendments for the purpose of eliminating differences of phraseology in the provisions taken from the 1008 Act and the 1920 Act, and provisions in the English and Scottish Bills. There is no point of substance in the Amendments, and no alteration in the law is involved by giving effect to them. In short, the Bill simply seeks to make available in convenient form a number of Scottish enactments which are difficult to handle in existing circumstances and which are brought together in this consolidating Bill. I hope that the House will approve of the idea, and, with the assurance which I have given that there is no alteration in the existing law involved, will have no hesitation in giving thi6 Bill a Second Beading.

Sir D. MACLEAN: There can be no objection to, but rather a hearty welcome for, such a Bill as this, inasmuch as the effect of it must be to make the non-learned in the law much more capable of finding out what the law is, and I hope that the work which is being done here with regard to agricultural holdings in Scotland will be performed as speedily as possible with regard to other branches of the law in Scotland, and, indeed, in England. At the same time I cannot help commenting on the perfect flood of small Bills which the various Departments are now pouring on to the House. That is a matter of which I hope the Government will take note, as what time they have to spare I think would be very much more profitably devoted to another day's Supply than to placing fresh legislation on the Statute Book.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I welcome this Bill particularly in view of the fact
that I drew attention to the necessity of some such Bill in a Debate last year. I do not say that it is in response to that suggestion that this Bill is now introduced, but certainly it would be of great and lasting benefit to the agricultural community in Scotland. It will not, of course, be of such benefit to the legal profession, because whereas now it is extremely difficult for the agriculturist to ascertain from the vast number of Acts which protect his industry any small point on which he desires information, he will now have in concise form all the Statutes which affect him. The right hon. Gentleman says that this Bill makes no alteration in the existing law. Of course we accept that statement. He says, indeed, that it does omit one of the Sections which deal with allotments. That particular Section will find a much better place in an Allotments Act. May I be permitted to clear up one point? It is the case, I believe, that Consolidation Bills going through this House are not only open to amendment, but are occasionally amended. I think that this is the right and proper point at which the House should decide whether or not, when we come to the Committee stage, Amendments are to be made to this Bill. I would like to see Amendments made to the Bill. For instance, there is an Amendment to the Schedule for which I hope I shall have the support of the Secretary for Scotland. It relates to the First Schedule, Sub-section 18, Part I. It deals with the improvements to which the consent of the landlord is required, and Sub-section 18 says:
In the case of arable land, the removal of bracken, gorse, tree roots, boulders, or other like obstructions to cultivation.
The right hon. Gentleman will remember that when the Agriculture Act of 1920 left this House the words in that Subsection, "in the case of arable land," did not form part of the Sub-section. It read simply, "the removal of bracken, gorse, tree roots, boulders, or other like obstructions to cultivation." In another place the words, "in the case of arable land" were inserted, and they quite clearly nullify the whole object of the Sub-section. If bracken, gorse, tree roots, boulders, and other like obstructions to cultivation exist in arable land they can be easily removed. The Amendment made in another place converted the Sub-section into an absurdity. I have introduced
into this House a Bill, the object of which is to remove the objectionable words. The Secretary for Scotland agreed that the Bill, if proceeded with, would have his support; in other words, that the Amendment which I propose was a wise and proper one. That Bill of mine is still before the House. The right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government and so far as Scotland is concerned, is agreeable to support my Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman support me if I place on the Paper an Amendment which will have the effect of amending this Bill in the sense of the Bill I introduced.

Mr. SPEAKER: This purports to be a Consolidation Bill only. If the Committee made the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member, I should have something to say on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I want to understand clearly whether or not it would be possible in Committee to amend this Bill. May I ask whether on occasions Consolidation Bills have not been amended in Committee?

Mr. SPEAKER: Some Bills are to consolidate and amend, and small Amendments have sometimes been taken on those Bills. This Bill does not say anything of the kind. I do not say that the Committee have not the full power. I do not control the Committee. But if the Bill is so changed in form as the hon. and gallant Member seems to suggest, I might have to decline to let it go to Third Reading.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: In those circumstances I would like to put this to the Secretary for Scotland: That when this Bill passes the Second Reading I shall put upon the Paper an Amendment to the effect which I have indicated. There are, indeed, other Amendments. I now say that to the Secretary for Scotland in order that he may make up his mind whether he can accept the Amendment, having regard to what Mr. Speaker has just said. I desire again to say how grateful the agricultural community in Scotland will be to the right hon. Gentleman for having introduced this very useful Measure to-day.

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: Like other hon. Members I welcome this Consolidating
Bill, and I agree that all who are connected with agriculture will be most thankful for having the enactments relating to Scotland consolidated. I notice that in the Fourth Schedule, which gives the list of enactments repealed, the Agriculture Act of 1920, Part II, is repealed "except Section eleven." I have only just had this Bill placed in my hands and I am not aware to what Section 11 refers. Does it refer to allotments? What is the reason for the repeal of Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1920, without the repeal of Section 11?

Dr. MURRAY: I join in the welcome to this Bill. The only complaint I make is that it does not go far enough. I would have liked to have seen all the Acts dealing with smallholdings included in this Bill. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will take into consideration the desirability of having those Acts codified in the same way. There are the Crofters Act and various amendments, and the Smallholders Act, and the Land Settlement Act of 1919. The people who are concerned with those Acts are a class who deserve the simplicity of a consolidating Measure more than do the people who are concerned with the Measures mentioned in this Bill. There is so much overlapping in the various enactments relating to smallholdings that it is absolutely necessary they should be simplified. One Clause in this Bill, Clause 43, has caught my eye. It says:
Where any jurisdiction permitted by this Act to the sheriff is exercised by the sheriff-substitute, there shall be no appeal to the sheriff.
I assume that that is taken from an Act of Parliament. If it be new, it seems to be an attack on the position of the sheriff and to indicate a disposition to encourage farmers to appeal to the Court of Session, which is a much more expensive process than appeal to the sheriff.

Sir F. BANBURY: Apparently the hon. and gallant Member of Kincardine (Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray) is under the impression that he can move an Amendment to a Bill which is
to consolidate the enactments relating to agricultural holdings in Scotland.
He cannot do anything of the sort. He cannot alter the Bill, for it would have the effect of altering the law. Such an attempt would be an attack on the time-honoured rule that you cannot amend a
consolidating Bill. I would like to congratulate the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) on having expressed to-day a view that I have often expressed—that a bunch of small Bills is of no use at all. The best that can be said of them is that they may not do any good, but what is to be feared is that, though they may not do any good, yet they may do some harm.

Mr. MUNRO: I am sure that the last speaker's observations do not apply to this particular Bill, for he must approve of a Bill of this sort, which brings together scattered pieces of legislation and makes them into a comprehensive mosaic. With regard to the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine, after what Mr. Speaker and the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) have said, I shall certainly not accept any Amendments on the lines foreshadowed by him. I would be very unwilling to imperil the fate of this Bill, even to satisfy the hon. and gallant Member's exuberant desire to legislate on the question of bracken. He must raise that question at another time. I take this opportunity of telling him quite frankly that, so far as I am entitled to express the view of the Government, I do not propose to accept in Committee any proposals which would have the effect of amending this Bill, seeing that the title of the Bill states that its purpose is to consolidate enactments relating to agricultural holdings in Scotland. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. and gallant Friend, but it is just as well to be frank about the matter. The hon. and gallant Member for East Fife (Colonel Sir A. Sprot) raised a question regarding the Fourth Schedule, and inquired the reason why Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1920, was repealed with the exception of Section 11. That is a Section dealing with allotments, and, as I explained in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the Committee elsewhere thought it more appropriate that that particular Section should be dealt with in an Allotments Bill rather than in a Bill relating to agricultural holdings. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) made the suggestion that small holdings legislation might be consolidated in the same manner. I think the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D Maclean) entertains the same desire.
I should be very happy to consider that suggestion, but I think it would be inconvenient to consolidate allotments law and small holdings law in the same Bill. They are very different and affect different classes of persons. Whether it may be possible to consolidate the law relating to small holdings is a question to which I shall give attention, my chief difficulty being that the resources of the Scottish Office in the matter of draftsmanship are very limited and the amount of work to be done is very considerable. Subject to that consideration, I shall look into the matter. The hon. Member for the Western Isles also referred to Clause 43, which excludes the jurisdiction of the sheriff. If he looks at the marginal note he will see that this is not a new enactment, but is carried forward from an Act passed so far back as 1908. The Section has worked well, and I see no reason for altering it. There is not the slightest reflection on the sheriffs involved.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Louis].

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I need only say a very few words regarding this Measure. It has been brought forward on behalf of, and with the entire assent and approval of, the four Scottish Universities, and it has been passed in another place without Amendment. Its purpose is to extend the existing power of University Courts to pass ordinances. It enables ordinances to be made for three purposes, which are enumerated in the Bill, and all of which I hope the House will agree are desirable purposes. The Universities are empowered, first, to pass ordinances imposing age limits upon the tenure of office of any principal or any professor in a university; second, to institute a new pension system for principals or professors, in addition to, or substitution for, existing pensions schemes; third, to provide for the admission of lecturers or readers to the
Senatus Academicus. Apart from these provisions, these gentlemen would have no right to form part of, or take part in the proceedings of, the Senatus Academicus,
These three provisions result from the somewhat narrow and inadequate provisions of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, which are now supplemented by those I have enumerated. The rights of the Crown with regard to any principal-ship or professorship of which it has the patronage, and the rights of principals and professors who are already in office are duly safeguarded by the Bill. There is just one other provision to which I need refer. The Bill provides for the admission to the general council of university lecturers and readers during their tenure of office. This provision confers ex officio membership on lecturers or readers who are graduates of other universities, and who otherwise would not be members of the general council in the University in which they are acting. That, I think, is a wise and beneficent provision, and I hope it will receive effect. I should add, what is not unimportant in these days, that the Bill imposes no charge whatever on the Exchequer. I hope, without further parley, the House will be good enough to give a Second Reading to a Measure which, if introduced late in the Session, is a useful Measure, and one which is agreed upon by those concerned in securing it, namely, the four Scottish universities.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: If I may mention the students of the Scottish Universities at the moment, I should say they welcome this Measure not less heartily than any professor, reader or lecturer. There are only one or two general considerations in connection with the Bill to which I propose to direct attention. In the first place, the Bill provides for ordinances dealing with the age limit of professors and other holders of posts in the University. That is a desirable provision. I admit it is very difficult to lay down a hard and fast age limit for professors or lecturers, because what is at stake is not so much the age of the holder of the office as his capacity to discharge the duties devolving upon him. It is not unfair to say that many of our Scottish professors for whom we have the very highest respect, have held office sometimes, when, perhaps, their knowledge was greater
than ever it was, but when it was perfectly impossible for them, by reason of the condition of their health, to make themselves either audible or, in a few cases, intelligible to the students who were at their mercy. That is a condition of affairs against which Scottish students are entitled to be protected, and I am grateful for this Clause in the Bill.
That leads us naturally to the provision in the Measure instituting a scheme of superannuation. This Bill provides that a superannuation scheme may be instituted, and I gather if such a scheme is instituted, it will form part and parcel of the federated superannuation scheme which applies to other Universities and is regarded as particularly appropriate for the holders of such posts. On that I make no comment at all at the present time, but it will be observed that in the Proviso to Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 it is laid down that any existing holder of an office is not compelled to come in under the scheme unless he consents. There is no compulsion. I have no desire to compel holders of offices in Scottish Universities to enter any superannuation scheme if they do not desire to do so, but we must be true to the principles of superannuation. It is our duty to ask whether it would not be proper, if we could get the agreement of the holders of these offices, to introduce some age limit into this Clause. After the age of 55, in general superannuation, the holder of an office is not eligible for inclusion in a scheme.
We may get holders of offices in Scottish Universities who were appointed as comparatively young men. They are at the moment holders of these posts, but if they decline to come under the scheme, then of course there is nothing to compel them to do so. I think I am correct in saying that this scheme is on an endow ment basis, but that docs not take away the mutual character of all superannuation. The question I put to the Secretary of Scotland is, whether this Clause could not be strengthened a little in the direction of bringing in officials or holders of offices, especally when those men are comparatively young. A fair way of doing that would be to insert—if agreement could be secured to the insertion—an age limit in the Clause. I think that is in the interests of superannuation as a whole. In other spheres in Scotland we have had ample experience
of the breakdown of superannuation schemes for many reasons, one being that a comparatively large number of people remained outside, and left only a narrow basis of contribution, and when burdens were placed upon the fund, this led to breakdown and in some cases to insolvency. On that particular point the Secretary for Scotland may have some reply to make, but on the general principle of superannuation there is substance in my contention.
8.0 P.M.
I venture to speak on behalf of some of the lecturers and younger men in the Scottish Universities in saying that they cordially welcome Sub-section (3) of Clause 1. There has been an agitation in Scotland for many years to try to bridge the gulf between the professors on one side and on the other the lecturers and the new class that is springing up in Scotland, namely, that of readers who are of the nature of professors. The gulf between the professorial class on the one side and the readers and lecturers on the other has not ministered to efficiency and sometimes not even to good will in the work of the Universities. I think I express the feeling of these younger men when I say that they welcome and very cordially welcome the provision for the admission of lecturers and readers to the Senatus Academicus. Clause 2 of the Bill provides that a lecturer or reader appointed by the University Court of a Scottish University who has held the office of lecturer or reader for one year shall thenceforward become a member of the General Council of the University. Why should it be laid down that the lecturer or reader must have held that office for one year in the University before he becomes a member of the General Council? Let me be perfectly frank and say that the powers of the General Council and its influence are comparatively limited, but I think the Secretary for Scotland will agree that there may be men coming to these posts in one Scottish University from another Scottish University with a considerable amount of experience. For a whole year, namely, during the first year of the holding of the office, you deny membership of the University Council, while, in point of fact, during that year it may so happen that very important questions may arise. I see no reason whatever why, on their appointment to any Scottish University,
they should not automatically become members of the General Council. They are already graduates of another University, and they have all the qualifications for being of immediate, rather than of deferred, service, because deferred service to the extent of one year is involved in this Clause. With these points of criticism, I desire to say that students, and, I think, all others interested in Scottish Universities, will give a very cordial welcome to this Measure, and we are grateful to the Government for having introduced it.

Mr. HOGGE: There are not many comments I want to make on this Bill. I think it is, perhaps, rather inadequate to the purpose for which it is intended. I think the principal result of a Measure of this kind might be that Chairs in Scottish universities might be open more than they are now to younger men. A number of Members now in the House are graduates of Scottish Universities, including my right hon. Friend opposite, and he will remember from his experience of the same university as he and I attended that one of the complaints of the students was that the professors held on far too long, that there was a great danger that the reputation which several Scottish universities have had in the past for attracting the very best men on every subject would lose that reputation if the men hung on to the posts after their usefulness had been completed. This task of settling the standard of age is committed to the University Court. As members of Scottish universities present will remember, the University Court is not a particularly democratic body. For instance, the students who, after all, are the main interest at any university, and who number many thousands, are only represented on the University Court by the Lord Hector and his Assessor. As the House knows, the Lord Rector of a Scottish university is usually a man engaged in public business elsewhere, and very seldom, unless he happens to be domiciled in the district, attends the meetings of the University Court. Therefore, the only representative of the students on the University Court is the Assessor of the Lord Rector, who is in touch with the students' representative councils, and he is to that extent able to convey to the University Court the public opinion of the students on any particular
topic. Otherwise, all the members of the Court are professors, and you are throwing by this Bill the onus on to the members themselves of fixing the age limit at which they will retire.
I think that is rather a difficult task to throw on the members of a Scottish University, because a Scottish University Chair is a very desirable appointment. It has a very excellent salary attached to it, and it means, in mny cases, less than six months' work in the year. It is not likely that they are going to fix the age at which they retire earlier than they are compelled to fix it. I observe that there are certain appointments in our Scottish universities which are in the gift of the Crown, and my right hon. Friend opposite deals with those appointments. There are other appointments which are in the hands of the University Court. But a large number of Chairs in our Scottish universities are in the appointment of the Crown. This Bill says that the University Court shall give some sort of indication of the normal age at which the professors shall retire, and that the Secretary for Scotland for the time being shall agree to the limitation by intimating that to the University Court. Why should not my right hon. Friend fix a time limit for the Crown appointments? He will set a far better standard, and do it far more quickly than if it be left to the University Court. Of course, the men now in the Chairs would require to die out or retire before my right hon. Friend could do that, but he could easily, in the case of all new appointments, fix an age limit; at which that professor shall be called upon to retire from his Chair.
There are other points in the Bill which one might discuss, but, as I say, the main question is to get a younger class of teacher in our Chairs as rapidly as possible, and I am wondering whether the Secretary for Scotland might not, in the exercise of the Crown's Prerogative, set a standard himself which would encourage the University Court to put their standard of age at a limit which would lead us to believe that an appointment to a University Chair did not mean a chapel-of-ease to certain learned men for the rest of their lives. I am quite sure that the whole efficiency of the University depends upon the men who are in the Chairs, and, therefore, I
suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should set a standard, and not wait upon the University Courts.

Dr. MURRAY: This is an important Bill, and its importance is in inverse ratio to its size. Although it is a very harmless, innocent document, I am inclined to think that in a comparatively short time it will work up a revolution in the universities of Scotland, because, as has been already mentioned, one of the distinct grievances of Scottish students in the past has been that so many men, for whom we have had the most kindly regard and respect, clung on to these Chairs long after their usefulness was past, and when the tide of knowledge and advancement of science and learning had passed them. Therefore, I welcome the improved status which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give to the lecturers, because it is from the lecturers that the Chairs ought to be recruited. There is a term new to me in the Bill, but it is a long time since I was at a. Scottish university. The term to which I refer is that of "reader." I used to hear it in connection with English universities, but it is absolutely new to me with regard to Scotland. I think it is one of these English innovations. I remember, when I was at the University, that what was called the Oxford pronunciation of Latin came down and absolutely changed the pronunciation of words. In the few words of Latin left to me, I stick to the old rather than the Oxford pronunciation. This inclusion of the word "reader," however, is not a fatal blot upon the Bill.
I do welcome the provision giving an improved status to the lecturers. They have been fighting for an improved position for several years, and the natural jealousy of professors may have stood in the way of that improvement in their status, much to the disadvantage of the students and the learning provided at, the universities. A university professor was like a Scottish bailie, "Aince a bailie, aye a bailie." Once a man was promoted to a university chair he remained there until he was practically carried away. I am glad the right hon Gentleman is inclined to remedy that grievance in Scottish university life. I should like the principle extended to the question of competence. Sometimes a man is appointed to a university chair because of his learning, but he is abso
lutely incapable of teaching. Knowledge and the imparting of it are two absolutely different things, and I think the Secretary for Scotland should give power to the university courts, or take some power himself to make the question of the professor's competence a determining factor in his continuance of office, independently of the question of age. I have known instances of men who have not reached their retiring age so to speak, who were absolutely incompetent to discharge their duties of professor, although their knowledge of a subject was, perhaps, very great indeed. I hope that in Committee some Amendment may be made extending the discretion of the university courts in regard to the question of the incompetence of a man after having a fair trial. I do not see why the universities, and the cause of learning in the Scottish universities, should be compromised by maintaining in a chair a man who is unfit for his post, whether it is on account of age or on account of incapacity for teaching. I have much pleasure in welcoming the general lines of the Bill, and I hope some Amendments can be made to it.

Mr. MUNRO: With the consent of the House, I may, perhaps, be allowed for a moment or two to reply to the criticisms which have been made against this Bill. The points which have been raised are, if I may say so, really all Committee points, which can be dealt with when the Bill goes upstairs. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) suggested, first of all, that some scheme should be provided whereby existing holders of office should be brought within the superannuation scheme. I can foresee difficulties in connection with that suggestion, but I will not enumerate them to-night. If my hon. Friend puts down an Amendment in that sense for the Committee stage upstairs, it will receive careful consideration. The other point he raised was similarly a Committee point, namely, that there was no reason why a lecturer or reader should have to tarry for a year before becoming a member of the General Council. I think prima facie there are reasons why a man who goes to a university to hold a post should hold it for a space of time to acquire experience of his duties and the atmosphere of the new university with
which he is associated, before the benefit conferred by this Bill devolves upon him. On the other hand, I appreciate the view my hon. Friend put forward, and he and I probably will have an opportunity also upstairs of discussing it.
Then my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) suggested some alteration in the Bill, also, I think, rather of a Committee character. He said that he saw some difficulty in the duty being remitted to the University Courts of fixing the age limit. I am not sure he was quite correct when he said the University Courts consisted almost exclusively of professors. I am not so familiar with these matters as I was at one time, but I think that is rather an exaggeration. You are dealing with a body of a responsible character, a body on the spot which knows the requirements of the University, and knows from experience the work which professors have done, and which, I venture to think, is far better qualified and equipped, by means of that knowledge and experience, to deal with this matter than anyone who chanced to hold my office. It is true that the Secretary for Scotland has a right to recommend professors where the appointment lies with the Crown. It is not a duty which I covet, and I do not desire, so far as I am concerned, to add to this responsibility any new responsibility such as my hon. Friend proposes to lay upon my shoulders. I think the same effect-really is brought about by the Clause in the Bill to which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh has referred, namely, that the consent of His Majesty must be signified through the Secretary for Scotland to any scheme which is proposed by the University Court. There again, if my hon. Friend thinks the point is worth pressing, we can debate it upstairs in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray), in one of his picturesque speeches, if he will allow me to say so, dealing with rolling tides and other things of that kind, indicated that he disapproved of the term "reader." If he consults the Hon. Member for Central Edinburgh, who knows much more about that subject than I can claim to do, I think he will be thoroughly enlightened on the point and may possibly become reconciled to the nomenclature. Seeing that that is really the only point he pressed, I do not think I should be justified—

Dr. MURRAY: There was the question of competence for the office.

Mr. MUNRO: He said the Secretary for Scotland should retain some control over the competence of the professors whom he recommended the King to appoint, but I think that is already sufficiently provided for through the University Court. The times are somewhat changed from those which he and I experienced, a great many years ago now, I am afraid, in the universities, but if he thinks it is worth while putting down an Amendment to give that power to the Secretary for Scotland instead of to the University Court, then I shall be prepared to debate that question also with him upstairs. All these matters being, as I really think, truly Committee points, I should not be justified in occupying the time of the House of Commons by debating them now, and I hope, after the, if I may say so, interesting discussion which we have had, the House will give the Bill its Second Reading.

GOVERNMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND (LOAN GUARANTEE) BILL.

Order for Second Beading read.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The object of this Bill is very clearly set out in the White Paper, which is in the Vote Office, and which ends with the satisfactory announcement that it is not anticipated that any charge will be borne on the Exchequer in consequence of this Measure. The Bill really is designed to afford to the Government of Northern Ireland the credit of the British Exchequer, in order to raise a loan to the amount of £3,500,000. It is simply one of the steps which we are taking during the transition period to enable the Government of Ireland to get on its legs and to meet the heavy expenditure which is inseparable from a very difficult and exceptional period. For instance, money
is required to enable the Northern Government to raise money for a local loans fund, and to raise money equally to meet the heavy demands for unemployment insurance. The amount that has been paid out is obviously in excess of the amount produced by the contributions of the employers and employed, and the Northern Government has, obviously, to find additional money. Then there are also the general purposes of Government. Those are the main objects for which the loan is required.
The amount has been settled by a consultation between the Treasury authorities here and the authorities of the Treasury of the Government of Northern Ireland. The issue will be made in consultation with the Bank of England, and the Government of Northern Ireland is called upon by this Bill to pass legislation to secure the interest and principal of their loan, and also to secure the repayment of any sum that may become payable in the event of our being called upon to make good the guarantee, but it is not anticipated, and there is no reason to anticipate, that we shall have to find any money. All that we are doing by this Bill is to afford, what I hope the House will agree is legitimate, assistance to Northern Ireland in a very difficult period to raise money for indispensable services. I hope the House will be satisfied with this brief explanation of the objects of the Bill and, taking this short statement of mine along with the Memorandum which has been issued and is now in the Vote Office, will give the Measure a Second Reading.

Mr. HOGGE: I am surprised that when we are discussing the Government of Northern Ireland (Loan Guarantee) Bill there is nobody present who deals with the Irish Office, and there are no Members representing Northern Ireland in the House. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for the speech he has made, which is already contained in effect in the White Paper, but what we are asked to do is this. It is quite true that he says it is not anticipated that any charge will, in fact, fall upon the Imperial Exchequer in respect of this guarantee, but that is only an anticipation, and we are asked to guarantee a sum of no less than £3,500,000. Before we do agree to that guarantee, I think we ought to have some assurance that the Northern Parliament
in Ireland is going about its Business in a satisfactory way. For instance, there is a Sub-section here in which part of this money is to be used for unemployment insurance. I seem to remember that we have already given considerable sums of money to the Northern Irish Parliament in order to deal with current unemployment. If I remember rightly, a sum of money was given which was to be divided in a certain ratio between the Protestant unemployed in Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland and the Roman Catholic section of the unemployed. This is also for unemployment insurance. Does that mean that under the agreement come to with regard to Northern Ireland the whole question of National Unemployment Insurance is now within the province of the Northern Parliament?

Sir J. BAIRD: It is transferred, and this is carrying on the obligation imposed by the unemployment insurance. The other is an exceptional sum given to meet an exceptional situation.

Mr. HOGGE: I quite agree that we may have to give an exceptional grant of money to deal with unemployment in a proper manner. This, then, is to enable the scheme which I gather from my hon. Friend is one of the transferred powers of the Irish Parliament to deal with that section of the insurance scheme which covers unemployment. He has given us no details, and no indication at all as to why Northern Ireland, which we have always been told is the most prosperous part of Ireland, there is any particular necessity for this part of the scheme to be buttressed—

Sir J. BAIRD: Buttressed in the same way as in England, where we have voted many millions to buttress the unemployment insurance scheme.

Mr. HOGGE: I was assuming that the same provision had already been made for Northern Ireland that obtains in this country. If this is for some exceptional reason and something beyond the normal, we are entitled to know the reason for it before we agree to granting the money. I note in this White Paper on the Estimate of probable expenditure, paragraph (a) tells us that loans to be raised are for public works, such as are in Great Britain financed from the local loans fund. That
latter phrase is one which requires to be interpreted particularly. We had a Local Loans Bill in this House the other night. In paragraph (c) we are. told the money is for general government purposes. What are general government purposes? What are some of the purposes of the Northern Ireland Government? I do not want to enter into any controversial matter, but Northern Ireland is having its resources strained because of the commotion which obtains on the border between those who live on the North and those who live on the South of it. Are general government purposes purposes of government or are they extraneous purposes arising out of the present situation in Ireland? I do not think it is unreasonable to ask what are these circumstances? I do not want my hon. Friend to imagine for a moment that we are trying to place any difficulties in the way of agreeing to this loan, but I do not think we have had sufficient information. He ought not to ask for this £3,500,000 without telling us, roughly, for example, for what it is required and what these different items to which I have referred mean. Perhaps he will make his explanation a little more explicit before this Second Reading is agreed to and which we shall all be obliged.

Mr. FOOT: In addition to the remarks made by the hon. Member who has just taken his seat, there are one or two questions I should like to out to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. In the White Paper which has been circulated it is stated that the loans will be raised as required by the Government of Northern Ireland for the following purposes: public works, unemployment insurance and genera] Government purposes. When we turn to the Bill which deals with the guarantee of the Treasury, the second Clause tells us that a guarantee cannot be given under the Act until the Government of Northern Ireland have satisfied the Treasury in certain particulars, and the grounds for satisfaction are set out. It is not, however, stated in the second Clause of the Bill whether the Treasury is to be satisfied as to the purposes for which this money is to be used. Will there be any power whatever to withhold the guarantee which this Bill proposes to give? Is the guarantee from the British Treasury dependent upon the money being used in the right direction? Certain discussions have arisen in this
House as to financing the Parliament of Northern Ireland. Supposing that this House should disagree with any expenditure, will the guarantee now asked for be dependent at all upon our being satisfied about the expenditure of the money There is a difference between the White Paper and the Bill in that particular.

Sir J. BAIRD: In reply to the inquiry of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot), I would remind him that the Government of Northern Ireland raises the money and spends it. I need hardly remind the hon. Member that Parliament conferred upon the Government of Northern Ireland power to carry on the Government of that country. We could not take these powers back again. We cannot interfere in the way in which Northern Ireland should manage her own business. AT that we seek to do by this Bill is to help the Northern Government to finance the ordinary work of government. The Government of Northern Ireland could raise money on its own security alone, but it is quite clear that the Government of Northern Ireland can get money more cheaply and its loans will be much more attractive if behind the security of the Northern Parliament we have the guarantee of the British Government. To say that we are to go through every item of expenditure under the guarantees is a position that I think would not be accepted by the Government of Northern Ireland nor would that Government ask for our guarantee on those terms. This is assistance temporary and not provided for by any other Act of Parliament to enable the Government of Northern Ireland to get over a difficult period.

Mr. FOOT: The White Paper says that the money is to be raised for certain purposes. Can we be assured that the money guaranteed is to be used for the purposes stated?

Sir J. BAIRD: Oh, certainly. What is given in this White Paper are examples of the purposes that it is impossible to specify: they are the purposes which are familiar to every Member of the House. These purposes will be before the Government of Northern Ireland, and when the money is to be voted by that Parliament the money will be obtained more cheaply because it will be obtained with the guarantee of the British Government behind it. The hon. Member for East
Edinburgh (Mr. Hoģģe) asked some questions about local loans, but these are all for purposes which I should imagine are very familiar to my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh, such as harbour works, sewage schemes, water works, and housing, works which are carried out by the local authorities, and for all these things money is required, and these, are the purposes for which the Central Government provide the money. Of course there must be some balance between the amount which they can raise by taxation and the amount which quite-legitimately can be raised by loan, and they will have the security of whatever the loan is spent upon to pay the interest on the debt. Surely my right hon. Friend does not contend that the system of local loans should not be applied in Ireland?

Mr. HOGGE: My point is that if the Government of Northern Ireland require money for local purposes like harbours, or for industrial undertakings, they ought to raise the money from their own people instead of coming over here.

Sir J. BAIRD: Apparently the hon. Member objects to any guarantee at all. This loan is not going to cost anything, because the security which Northern Ireland is able to offer is ample, and therefore we shall never be, called upon to make good this guarantee. Under these circumstances, I am surprised to find my hon. Friend adopting the attitude he has done, and I hope I have satisfied him with regard to local loans.

Mr. HOGGE: You have explained it, but you have not satisfied me.

Sir J. BAIRD: So far as my information goes, there is not the slightest risk, and I cannot imagine my hon. Friend withholding his support from this proposal under these circumstances. I have been asked what is meant by general government purposes. This might mean police, or balancing the Budget, or a number of other things which cannot now be foreseen. When you run great enterprises like the government of a country, it is obvious that there must be periods when you must raise money by means of loans. When Northern Ireland requires a loan for the general purposes of government, we are prepared to guarantee that loan to the amount of £3,500,000.
As regards the expenditure contemplated for local purposes, the amount is estimated at £100,000, mostly required for housing, and £700,000 for unemployment insurance. With regard to unemployment, at the moment the great linen and shipbuilding industries in Northern Ireland are in an exceptionally bad condition, and it is not surprising that these sums are required. Under these circumstances, I think we should help Northern Ireland in the direction of guaranteeing this loan. As another example of the purpose for which this guarantee will be used, I may mention that the Northern Government are contemplating issuing saving certificates on the same lines as we do. When a man goes to purchase a Northern Ireland saving certificate, if besides the security of the Northern Ireland Government there is also the guarantee of the British Government, that will make such investments very much more attractive. It is anticipated that the guarantee will extend over several years. I hope the House will be good enough to give this Bill a Second Reading.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir J, Baird.]

MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill has come down to us from another place, and perhaps it will be convenient to the House if I say a word or two with regard to its provisions. I do not think it is necessary, in spite of the fact that the Bill is a long one, to spend very much time by way of preliminary explanation for reasons which I will give in a moment. The fact is that this Bill is really the natural consequence of the efflux of time. It is now 35 years since the original Merchandise Marks Act was passed, and during that interval of time experience, and, I am bound to add, the ingenuity of the lawyer, has shown there are various loopholes in the working of the Act through which some of those
who, I think it will be generally agreed, ought not to pass do, in fact, succeed in passing. Accordingly, one of the tasks which was first taken up by the Government after the Armistice, and which would have been taken up no doubt at an earlier date had it not been for the War, was to pass in review the necessity for some Amendments of the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act. Accordingly, Sir Auckland Geddes, the then President of the Board of Trade, appointed a Committee to investigate the subject. That. Committee was under the Chairmanship of the hon. Member for the Wells Division (Sir H. Greer). It was a very strong Committee. It held a prolonged inquiry. It collected a mass of evidence which has been presented to the House, and, finally, it presented a unanimous Report, making certain recommendations fur the amendment of the law relating to merchandise marks. Most of those recommendations the House will find embodied in the first part of this Bill.
I may say, in general, of this Bill that while it is true it is called a Bill to amend the Merchandise Marks Act and to do other things, in fact, in plain non-legal language, it can be defined as a Bill for the prevention of fraud on the consumer. The first part deals with fraud in relation to imported goods. The second part deals with fraud in relation to Government marks, and the third part deals with fraud in relation to the use of the Royal Arms devices and titles. The Committee were unanimous in the Report which they presented. With regard to the first part of the Bill I think, perhaps, the most useful thing I can do, in case Members of the House do not happen to have the Report of the Committee convenient to their hands, will be to read two Sections from that Report—Sections (7) and (8)—which really put the matter contained in the first part of the Bill in a nutshell as follows:
On consideration therefore we recommend that when it has been established after an official inquiry that it is in the public interest that the local origin of the goods should be indicated in the case of any particular description or class of imported goods, the Board of Trade. should have power to deal with the question by Order. The power should be wide enough in cases where the official inquiry has shown that the circumstances so require to enable an Order or Orders to be made—

(1) Requiring an indication of origin (either specific or general) to be given and specifying—
(2) The kind, description or class of goods in respect of which such indication is to be given;
(3) The form of indication;
(4) The manner in which the indication is to bo given, whether by mark placed upon the goods or in some other manner;
(5) The time or occasion when the indication is to be given and in particular whether the indication is to be given on importation only or also on sale of the goods either by wholesale or retail in this country; and
(6) Exempting any particular kind, description or class of goods, e.g. goods in transit, from all or any of the requirements of the Order either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be called for in the public interest."
The Committee go on to point out what is the main reason for a recommendation of that nature. The main reason, as I have indicated to the House, is the fact that experience during the past 35 years has shown that there are certain loopholes—certain undesirable loopholes—through which those who have, I will not say exactly a fraudulent mind, but at all events who are not entirely truthful, might and do contrive to creep. It has been held and it is the law to-day, that while the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887. prohibits a false indication of origin being given to goods it has been held that that indication, in order to be false in the meaning of the Act, must be in writing in the first place, and in the second place it must be in general physically applied to the goods. The Committee point out that while it is true that these limitations have been imposed in the principal Act, yet by legal decisions they have been made to exclude a number of forms of misrepresentation which ought to be covered, and in particular misdescriptions in catalogues and advertisements or false indications by title—for instance, the use of such a term as "Irish linen" by a firm which does not deal mainly or exclusively with Irish linen. They go on to recommend that
There should he brought within the scope of the Act all indication, descriptions or statements, oral, documentary or other, whether physically attached to goods or not. including statements in advertisements or catalogues and false indications given by trade names or titles of firms or companies
which are reasonably calculated to lead a purchaser to a false belief as to the origin of the goods.
That is, in short, the purpose, and I think it will prove to be the achievement of Part I of the Bill. The essential part of Part I of the Bill is Clause 1, which provides that
Where the Board after making such inquiries as they think necessary for the purpose of enabling them properly to exercise their powers under this Section are of opinion that a false impression as to the origin of any class or description of goods imported into the United Kingdom is likely to arise by reason of their form, get-up, style or finish, or otherwise, the Board may, subject to the provisions of this Section, make an Order requiring an indication of origin to be given in the case of goods of that class or description made or produced outside the United Kingdom.
The remainder of Part I really deals with the remedies for various other defects which have appeared through the progress of years. Part II, as will be seen, deals shortly with the wrongful application of Government marks. Here again I do not think any serious controversy will be raised in any quarter of the House. Part II is designed to hit the man who wrongfully puts on goods a mark which is well known as a Government mark, and the Government marks in question hon. Members will find specified in the Second Schedule of the Act As to Part III, equally I do not think there will be any great controversy. It deals with the wrongful use of what collectively I might call Royal insignia—with
the Royal Arms, or any Royal device, or any arms or device closely resembling the Royal Arms or any Royal device; or any title, name, or description containing the word "Royal"; or any other title or name suggesting the patronage of His Majesty or any member of the Royal Family or connection with His Majesty's Government.
I do not think that in any quarter of the House there will be any serious desire to contest what I have said, namely, that these cases are of a class in which we should all desire to see fraud on the consumer avoided. I want now to make an appeal to the House. The Bill, as I observed at the outset of my remarks, is a somewhat long one. I admit that at once. It consists of 16 Clauses and three Schedules. As I have said, however, the general principle underlying it is one about which I do not think there is any controversy in any part of the House. We are all agreed that we want to prevent what I have called these fraudulent
dealings. Therefore, I appeal to the House that they will, without any very protracted discussion, perhaps be good enough to give me the Second Reading of the Bill. I agree that it is a Bill which needs very careful examination in Committee. It is just the sort of Bill which does need very careful examination in Committee, because we are in the position of having the general recommendations as principles, and we are endeavouring to translate them into the language of an Act of Parliament. That is always a difficult thing to do. It is always a thing in regard to which there is bound, naturally, to be a certain amount of criticism, and in regard to which criticism can be and is helpful. There fore, I hope that when the Bill goes to Committee hon. Members will give us such criticism as they can and such help as they can. The objects that we want to achieve are, I believe, common to the whole House, and I trust that a friendly reception will be given to the Bill.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. HOGGE: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his speech, though I do not think he has done himself justice with regard to the Bill. A habit is growing up on the Government Benches of coming down to the House with a very considerable Measure, and saying, in effect, "Do not worry about discussing this in the House of Commons; send it up to Committee, and we will give you ample opportunity in Committee to go into all the points that arise out of the Bill." When the Bill goes upstairs into Committee, hon. Members who sit on those Committees know the kind of treatment that these Bills receive, and the opportunities that are afforded them of going into the various details. It does seem to be asking too much of the House of Commons, in the month of July, when everyone anticipates that the Government is laying its plans for rising, say, in the first week in August or very shortly after that, to bring in a Bill of this kind and ask us to send it upstairs into Committee. I do not propose to discuss the Bill to-night on Second Reading for that reason in particular. I am not surprised that the Government have brought in this Bill. A coupon Government is almost certain to bring about coupon trade, and that is what this Bill really does. It is another attempt on the part of the Government
to interfere with the legitimate trade interests in this country. We have had far too many such attempts from this Government, and we have entrusted, and have been forced by the weight of the Government majority to entrust powers to individuals and Departments which they ought not to have if trade is going to improve in this country. Therefore, I want to confine myself entirely to Clause I of the Bill, which is the operative Clause, and to make what comment I want to make upon that. It is one of the most-extraordinary Clauses that I ever saw in any Bill brought before this House. It provides that
Where the Board, sifter making such inquiries as they think necessary"—
for the purpose of doing what?—
for the purpose of enabling them to exercise their powers under this Section, are of opinion that a false impression …is likely to arise …
That is the basis on which they are to come to a decision. When they have made up their minds that it, is conceivable that a false impression is likely to arise, then they have powers to interfere with the importation of certain goods into this country. They have four categories on which they can form their opinion. There is first the question of form. I should like to know what that means. What would be the definition of "form" in regard to trade? The second is the "get-up." One understands that. It is, I believe, a slang phrase which is used in commerce, and which one does not expect to see in an Act of Parliament, particularly from my hon. Friend, who is an expert in style. The third category is style, and I do not quite know what that means in regard to trade: nor do I quite understand what: finish, the fourth category, connotes. Apparently, however, these four words arc used in order to try and describe the nature of articles which are imported into this country. This Board of Trade, which has already given us a sample of the way in which it can interfere with trade under the operation and administration of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, is. apparently, going to interfere in the same way with every article that comes into his country. If he goods are affected by any one of these four categories, they can put into operation machinery which requires an indication to be given of the origin of any
piece of goods of that class or description which is produced outside the United Kingdom.
After all, the ordinary consumer knows pretty well what he or she wants, and if they do not get the article they want in one place they find it elsewhere. If the consuming community are going to have imposed upon them this further obstacle to trade, I do not know where we are going to land ourselves. The Board of Trade can interfere with quite a host of things. Take the question of advertisements, which my hon. Friend mentioned. I do not want to refer to any particular commodity and give anyone an advertisement in a Debate in the House of Commons, but hon. Members know perfectly well the class of goods that are aimed at. If these goods arc brought within the circle of suspicion by the Board of Trade, then, before they can be imported into this country, the question of the form of the advertisement of these goods will have to be censored by the Board of Trade. It is, surely, a common axiom, and my hon. Friend will certainly agree with me, that the one thing that is going to bring us back to a sound financial position, and encourage again the old industrial and commercial prosperity of this country, is to get rid of all hindrances to trade; and here, three and a half years after this Government came into power—nearly at the end of their fourth year—they are bringing in another Bill that is a hindrance to trade. I do not say that there are not-certain legitimate cases in which a Board of Trade or a Government might reasonably interfere; but those cases are so glaring and apparent that the public will themselves interfere by refusing the particular article, without any necessity for any action by the Board of Trade. The British consumer is a man, particularly a woman—because they do the bulk of the purchasing—of very broad common sense, and if she is had or deceived on one occasion, she is not going to be deceived a second time, and there are so few, therefore, of these articles, in my view, which would be involved that it is a mistake to give any Government Department powers of this kind because immediately you give them those powers what they take are not the powers which are laid down in this Clause. They take a roaming commission over all the im-
ports into the country. There is a section of opinion in this House, and I think it is not unfair to say the Government itself and the Government supporters hold that opinion strongly, which believes that to interfere with trade is to promote success in industry. In other words, they are Protectionists of various degrees of strength, and this kind of thing appeals to them. If they can keep out those goods they hope in that way to create an atmosphere which would make it more difficult in future for other goods to come in. If this Bill goes upstairs I am certain my hon. Friend will not be disappointed if it is subjected to metriculous scrutiny in order that when it emerges from Committee the only power which will be retained in it so far as Part I is concerned is to confine it entirely to dealing with eases of fraud. The average ease in the importation of goods is not a case of fraud at all but in most cases of preference of the consumer, and in cases of preference with regard to the consumer I am not prepared to give this or any Government the powers they seek in this Bill.

Sir CROYDON MARKS: While this Bill purports to be one which is to protect industry, I fear unless it is very considerably altered it will do more towards harassing than towards helping. It sets out with the avowed object of making it difficult for goods coming from abroad to come in unless they are subject to very careful scrutiny. This of necessity means delay, and while it means delay it may also mean a loss of business resulting from that delay. I think the Bill, while designed avowedly to check fraud, has associated with it something which will not check fraud at all, but will undoubtedly check work and industry. There are some goods which come into the country falsely marked which ought obviously to be stopped, but which cannot be stopped under the present law and which I imagine no one in the House would desire should not be stopped. For instance, steel goods marked "Sheffield" obviously ought to be stopped immediately they are examined. There are other goods which come in with a false mark upon them deliberately known and intended to be marked falsely, and they are the goods which I presume this Bill is intended primarily to check. But while it sets out to check fraud it puts a harass upon
trading that I think the original promoters of the inquiry never intended should result. I. wish to suggest that when the Bill gets into Committee there should be an entire revision of some of the proposals in order that when the fraudulent person is being sought the innocent person shall not be harassed, as he may be very easily under these Government restrictions connected with the import of ordinary goods. It is too late in the day to ask the question whether we propose to encourage foreign trade or not. We must have foreign trade, and it is idle to make any kind of difficulty associated with those who desire and must have these foreign goods. Hence, we should encourage rather than discourage the entrance into this country of goods which are essentially needed. There are some words which are used in the every-day description of goods which will make those now using them under this Bill subject to very serious penalties. It becomes an offence for any person to apply the name of any town to any goods, and it gives a right to any person living in those towns to proceed against those who are thus applying such names to the goods unless they happen to live in the town. There arc plenty of goods sold to-day which have towns or geographical names associated with them by custom. For instance, there are Oxford shoes, which no one imagines need be made in Oxford. They are an ordinary description of a certain class of goods. Banbury cakes are sold all over the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Plymouth gin!"] There are also Chelsea buns and, coming to something very much more important, there are Lancashire boilers and Cornish boilers, types of boilers known the whole world over, but no one imagines that they must essentially come from Lancashire or Cornish firms. But under the Bill as it stands any person using these names would be subject to very dire penalties, although innocently using them. Therefore, while the Bill undoubtedly will give protection in preventing fraudulent goods coming in intentionally marked in a fraudulent way, it will also harass those who are using words that they have a perfect right to use, and associated with which there can be no possible suggestion of fraud.
There is another suggestion in Clause 2. It provides that any person using the word "royal" in Conner don with any name, and trade, or any title shall be subject to penalty. What is to happen to those companies and trading institutions and business people who have associated with their trade at present the word "royal"? There are lots of articles sold the type of which has become known as the Royal type. I am not going to mention those things which are so sold, because it would be a possible advertisement. But there are things used in offices all over the Kingdom which are known as the Royal type. No one suggests that that is deceptive. They happen to emanate from America, where the word has no national significance and where the word "royal" was used as denoting the productions of a certain firm. Is it proposed that these hundreds and thousands of machines now in use with the word "royal" on are not hereafter to be used, not to be repeated and not to be in any way traded with because a new Act of Parliament has come into existence which creates a new offence There are other Clauses in the Bill which are quite fair and the legitimate object of which everyone in the House would desire to encourage, that is. to check fraud and to put down the wrongdoer. But I think the House ought not, under the guise of giving a real safeguard against the illegitimate trader, to do anything which is going to harass, inconvenience or hinder the ordinary trader in connection with the every-day marketing or selling of the goods that he has for long been selling, and concerned with which there is no trouble.
There is another requirement in the Bill. All the articles coming in from abroad must be marked with the country of origin; an utterly impossible thing with regard to many goods. Is it proposed to mark eggs with the word Holland upon them, and to make it an offence if they are not so marked? Is it proposed to mark fruit with a foreign name associated with it? So on in regard to other things coming from abroad, which are sold singly, removed from the case or package in which they are brought and which is marked. Unless a man indicates the origin upon the separate article he sells, he is to be subject to some offence or penalty under this Bill.
These are Committee points, and yet they arc points to which the attention of the House should be drawn, so that when exception is taken to them in Committee it shall not be said that new points are being raised, against which the forces of the Government will be used to prevent their being attended to. I welcome the, Bill with regard to the way in which it will resist and make awkward trading for the false traders; but, at the same time, I urge the Government not to deal with that in such a way that it will not only hurt the legitimate trader but will injure that which we are seeking to build up in this country, an industry associated with our general merchandise, which we obtain from all parts of the world Therefore, while supporting the introduction of the Bill, and while welcoming some of its Clauses, I shall do my best, if I happen to be a Member of the Committee, to urge the Government to revise some of the other Clauses, or to put in such safeguards as will not harrass those who are carrying on a legitimate business;, in connection with which they have long since operated, but in connection with which they might commit an offence unless this Bill is amended.

Mr. HANNON: Like my hon. Friend who has just spoken, I cordially welcome this Bill, which is long overdue in our legislation. May I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade upon the way in which he introduced the Bill? His exposition of its provisions was perfectly clear, and was couched in a very conciliatory spirit which could not arouse opposition among hon. Members sitting above the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House. May I also pay a tribute to the admirable work which was done by the Board of Trade Merchandise Marks Committee, which gave a great deal of time and a great deal of research, under difficult and complex conditions, to the inquiry which they conducted? The Bill, instead of giving grievous offence, as is apparently the case with the ardent protagonists of Free Trade above the Gangway, and, in some small degree, to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir Croydon Marks), does not go far enough, and I hope that when the Bill is in Committee we shall have a much more definite and concise expression of what is intended by the phrases used in the first Clause.
I agree that the words "form," "get-up," "style," and "finish" do require a little more elucidation and a little more definiteness, and, above all, the words "or otherwise" will have to be more carefully defined in the context of the Measure. As I understand the first Clause, in order to establish a case against an imported article, the British manufacturer will be obliged to show that the false "style," "finish," and so forth, is a copy of an article produced in (his country which is assumed to possess some kind of national characteristic. I do not think that the onus of proving that ought to be imposed upon the British manufacturers. In the text of the first Clause we should have a more definite form of expression as to the remedy which the British manufacturer will have against a competing article from abroad. The Board of Trade Merchandise Marks Committee gave a good deal of attention to what is called unfair competition, but I am afraid that there is no provision in the Bill to cover that important point. If I read a quotation from their Report dealing with compulsory marking my point will be made clear:
The Board of Trade should have power to make an Order, after an official inquiry has shown that such an Order would be in the public interest, requiring indications of origin (either specific or general) to be given in the case of any particular kind, description or class of imported goods, including power to specify the form of the indication. and manner in which, and the time or occasion when, it is to be given and to exempt any kind, description or class of goods from any or all of the requirements of the Order. In the course of the inquiry particular attention should he directed to the question whether the goods are manufactured, produced or sold under circumstances constituting unfair competition.
That is one of the most serious difficulties with which manufacturers in this country have to contend, and I hope that when the Bill goes to Committee some provision will be inserted to enable the British manufacturer to hold his own against the subtle devices which are adopted by manufacturers abroad in order to place their goods in our market. The hon. Member for North Cornwall laid stress upon the delays which may be incurred in dealing with imported articles, under the operation of this Bill. I much prefer to have delay, in order, definitely, to exclude a foreign article which competes with an article produced in this
country, rather than have our own people out of employment. It is much better that we should exercise the closest possible scrutiny over competing articles coming here, than that we should allow them to come in indiscriminately, and thereby keep our own people walking the streets. I regard this Measure as in some small degree introducing into our legislation an amount of protection which will enable us to increase the volume of employment in our industries. On these grounds, without any further attempt at criticism, and because there will be plenty of criticism forthcoming upstairs, I welcome the Measure, commend it to the House, and hope that it will receive a Second Reading.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The last speaker has revealed to the House the intention of this Measure, more so than did the Parliamentary Secretary. It is clear to me that this Bill shows the Protectionist attitude of the Government and its supporters; but I do not rise to criticise it from that point of view only. I would like to show how ridiculous this Measure will be in its operation in some respects. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary what would happen to Caerphilly cheese manufactured in Canada, Devonshire cream coining from Denmark, and many other commodities and articles of food sold over grocery and provision counters in this country which have no mark whatever? There are commodities that are in daily use, and are known by name. Those names are never printed, they are simply bespoken by word of mouth, and everybody knows what he is buying without there being any mark whatever on them.
I should like to put one or two questions upon Part II of the Second Schedule. It is intended to prohibit the use of Government marks. Among those marks are the broad arrow and the double broad arrow. I wonder whether any complaints have reached the Board of Trade that people have been foolish enough to use convict marks on their goods, and what benefit would accrue to anybody using Government marks of that kind. The Parliamentary Secretary said—I should have very much liked to hear him dilate upon it—that this Measure would make the misuse of titles punishable. I wonder what he
actually meant by that sentence. In regard to the word "royal," I feel sure that the Board of Trade, in applying this Measure, will find itself up against considerable difficulty. An hon. Member has mentioned a few of the difficulties. Let me give an instance which reduces the thing to an absurdity. In how many connections is the word "royal" used in this country? It is used in common, and those who do so do not use it as it is used in this House. It is used by trading firms and in all manner of ways, for business purposes and otherwise. It would also be very interesting to know how the Board of Trade intend to apply these Regulations, particularly as there are articles of consumption in this country that go by name without having any mark whatever attached to them. They are sold over the counters, and people understand exactly what they are. As an illustration, I have mentioned Caerphilly cheese. That was manufactured, once upon a time, in Wales. It is not manufactured there now: the manufacture of that cheese has gone abroad.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): Oh, no!

Mr. R. DAVIES: I ought to know more about Wales than the hon. Baronet. This commodity was once produced in the country to which I belong. I trust that the Board of Trade, when they come to deal with this Measure if it becomes law, will remember the position of the shopkeepers in this country under Clause 3. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to the complaint of the shopkeepers with regard to the marking of imported eggs.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: Quite frankly, I view this Bill in some ways with a great deal of apprehension. During the last two or three years we have been gradually getting out of that period of Government control during the War that was an injury and that really did harm to trade. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir Croydon Marks) that there will have to be very vital Amendments in the Measure before it becomes law. He mentioned the power in Clause 2 for the prohibition of national or public devices. I tan give the hon. Baronet in charge of this Bill a case which will cause very considerable trouble if these devices are to be prohibited.
Some people have a habit of calling clotted cream "Devonshire" cream. Others, again, persist in calling it "Cornish" cream. Is he going to decide, in the first place whether that cream will be called by one or the other of those two names? If so, he will have a very considerable row about it, In the next place, how is he possibly going to stop a name of this kind being used in a general sense in every small dairy throughout the country? If he looks at Clause 2 rather more carefully—probably he has examined it very carefully already—he will realise in view of the possibility of the trouble that may come on various Government Departments in the future if it is carried out in its strict sense, that it will want very drastic amending.
Again on this point of view I feel, very strongly indeed, that the time has come when the ordinary buyer in any market in England should be absolutely certain what he is getting when he pays down his cash. The ordinary consumer of food, when he goes into a shop in London, ought to know, particularly when he is buying food, whether it comes from this country or from abroad; whether he is buying the highest class of article such as British goods are, or whether he is getting some inferior stuff which comes from another land. There are other particulars in the Bill—and there is a very great deal of good in it. If it is administered in the proper way it will help the Government, and it will help the consumer to obtain the best articles and to know what he is buying. I want, however, to ask the Government, when this Bill is dealt with in Committee, to try and make it simpler, so as not to impose needless restrictions on the general industry of the country.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: I have been in correspondence with several manufacturers. They are very anxious that this Bill should become law, and they welcome it, but there are certain points on which they are a little doubtful, particularly in regard to the use of the Schedule under Clause 1. I will come to that in a moment. The difficulty is this: at the present moment foreign knives and and other articles—cigarette holders, ash trays, metal pencil cases, etc.—are being
imported into this country in a way which is likely to mislead the public. The public are naturally coming to the conclusion that these things are English-made, and especially Sheffield-made. These articles come in without any indication upon them, because they do not bear the name of the manufacturer. If the name of the manufacturer were put on them they would be free from all deception. Many of the articles are introduced into this country by way of advertisement. They are given away as an advertisement to customers—not necessarily to those customers who manufacture knives and those sort of things, but to others. I will give the House one or two examples. The marking comes on the hafts of the knives, which are frequently made of steel or metal. Here are some of the examples of the advertisements: "John Dewar's Scotch Whiskey," "Buchanan's Black and White," "Lea and Perrin's Sauce," "Boot's Cash Chemists." These things are imported into this country and purchased from the importer by the advertiser, in order that he may send out these things as presents to his customers.
Sheffield manufacturers say that if these things are introduced, there ought to be some indication that they are not British manufacture. That is why they welcome this Bill. They regret, however, that the full recommendations of the Committee, which went into the whole matter and reported in 1920, have not been fully followed by the Board of Trade. The Committee recommended in paragraph 7 that when it has been established, after official inquiry, that it is in the public interest that the origin should be indicated in the case of any particular goods, the Board of Trade? hall have power to deal with the question by Order. That is not the form which the Board of Trade have followed in this Bill. Clause 1 says that if they are of opinion that a false impression as to the origin of any class or description of goods imported into the United Kingdom is likely to arise by reason of their form, get-up, style, or finish, or otherwise, the Board may make an Order. That is a different thing from giving the Board of Trade power, if they think it is in the public interest, to make an Order. What we are afraid of is that the words in the Bill might restrict or
narrow the result of the inquiry very much.
I am glad to say that the President of the Board of Trade was kind enough to receive a deputation from us the other day, and I have now got a communication from the Board of Trade explaining exactly what they mean. They say that they have now consulted Parliamentary counsel about the point raised in connection with Clause 1. The point was whether, if the Board made an Order under Clause 1 against goods of any particular class, the effect would be, first, that all goods of that class would have to be marked with an indication of origin irrespective of whether the form, get-up, etc., of any particular consignment of goods was calculated to deceive, and that in every case they will have to be marked with the country of origin; secondly, or if only the particular goods in the class referred to would have to be marked in the cases in which the Customs found that the form, get-up, etc., were likely to cause deception. Then they state the Parliamentary counsel thinks that Clause 1, as it stands, means what it is intended to mean, but admits that there may be a doubt, and they will therefore —this is the important part—move an Amendment in Committee which will make it clear that when an Order has been made against goods of a particular class or description, all goods of that class or description will have to bear the indication of origin, without regard to the question whether the form or get-up of any individual consignment of such goods is likely to deceive. Our opinion was that those words "form, get-up, etc.," were not sufficient indication, and therefore we welcome very much the statement that my right hon. Friend will be prepared in Committee to make such an Amendment in the Clause as we consider necessary. In conclusion, I wish to thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which he has received the deputation, and for the kind response which he has given to it.

Mr. AMMON: There can be no complaint as to the clearness and lucidity with which the hon. Gentleman presented this Bill, But, unfortunately, that clearness and lucidity are not reflected in the Bill. Under the first Clause there will be a considerable harassing of trade,
particularly as it is left very much to the arbitrary judgment of certain people to decide whether a false impression is likely to arise. What that means exactly is very difficult to state in precise language. But one can see very much greater difficulties than those from which we are suffering under the present slightly restricted form of protection. This does seem an attempt to bring in protection on a side issue, and it would be far better if that were made clear at the outset. The hon. Member opposite has drawn attention to some confusion that will arise by the use of certain terms which have lost their local significance, and are now of general application—such things as Oxford shoes, or the use of the word Royal, which is used with reference to a certain machine imported from the United States to which the term "Royal" applies, so that great difficulty would arise if there was any attempt to enforce that particular Regulation. Perhaps Clause 9 is an attempt to safeguard that particular position by the Proviso as to the case where a trade description is generally and bona fule applied to any class or description of goods. If that is so, I would suggest that the second paragraph of that Clause goes rather far towards wiping it out. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look into the matter to see if the provision cannot be made more watertight than it is at the present time. I gather the intertion is in that particular Clause to meet the position raised by the hon. Member when he made reference to this particular thing.
I was a little astonished by the comment made by the hon. Member below the Gangway who said that he was willing to do anything that would restrict foreign goods from entering into this country so long as they could be manufactured here. That is what we are suffering from at present. That is an extraordinary doctrine to propound just now when we are seeking every possible means to expedite an exchange of commodities. To prevent foreign goods from coming into this country when they could be made here, presumably regardless of everything else, is going to work great disaster, for it makes it almost impossible for us again to revive our trade. One is bound to agree with the remark of the hon. Member who introduced the Bill that, so far as it tends to prevent fraud in.
the use of certain names such as Sheffield applied to certain things coming from abroad, it must get; the united support of all parties. But if it is let go forward in this particular form, and I refer especially to the first Clause, which is so loose, it will be impossible for business men to carry on their business without finding their goods constantly held up by arbitrary decisions here and there. In a -Bill of this description surely we are entitled to ask that there shall be more precise language, so that we may know what is the intention of the Government in their declared efforts to promote British trade. It looks as if this were an attempt to impose a form of Protection without saying so, and to cripple trade.

Sir COURTENAY WARNER: This Bill is a very extraordinary Bill. I regret very much that I was not here earlier to hear the explanation of it. As it stands, it is quite clear, as the last speaker has said, that it will be a great detriment to the trade of the country. I do not think it is in a form to go to a Committee, nor do I think it is possible that the Government could have realised what is the meaning of such complicated Clauses and what this control of trade means. It certainly will cause great injury to the trade of the country, not only because it is not clear, but because it will necessitate the Government making Regulations that must be a great detriment to business, however much the Government intend not to hamper it. The first Clause necessitates orders that would really bring the importation of foreign goods almost to a standstill, certainly in many classes of articles. That we do not want to do. It is all very well for a certain amount of protection to be given in certain cases, but this is not a case where any revenue is to be got or where we are to benefit our own trade. We are simply hampering our trade with foreign countries. Surely it is not a Bill to be brought in in this way, and certainly I shall vote against the Second Reading of it.

Mr. FOOT: When the Bill was introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary, he said that only a few minutes were needed for the purpose. Some of us would have liked a fuller explanation. So far as the Parliamentary Secretary's statement went, I agree that the explanation was quite lucid, but unfortunately many of the
Clauses were not dealt with at all. Enough has been said to indicate that no more important Bill has been introduced recently. It touches almost every part of our trade, and in the opportunity I have had for going through its Clauses it seems to me that its extent will be much more considerable than was indicated. I can quite understand that an hon. Member who spoke in support of the Hill just now would regard it with favour, because, apparently, he regretted that any goods whatever were brought into this country from abroad. He seemed to regard any such articles as something in the nature of obscene literature or diseased meat. At any rate he spoke of the objection he had to anything like foreign goods coming into this country. I assume, of course, that he knew that any foreign goods brought into this country were brought in by some British merchant because that merchant thought that he could carry on his business by introducing the goods. That is why they come in. I should have thought that it was far too late in the day to talk about foreign trade being stopped. Undoubtedly, if we are to stop goods from coming in we must accept the necessary corollary that we are stopping goods from going out, and we must return to a condition of things that we had hundreds of years ago, when there was no foreign trade at all. The first Clause is the one that causes me some anxiety. It says:
Where the Board, after making such inquiries as they think necessary for the purpose of enabling them properly to exercise their powers under this Section, are of opinion that a false impression as to the origin of any class or description of goods imported.
Who is to give the Board this opinion? Will the Board of Trade, which surely already has enough inspectors, send out a larger army of inspectors to go into the works and shops of the country in order to find out whether there are any offending goods that can be brought before this Board, so that their suspicion might be brought to bear on those goods? If so, it means a very considerable expenditure, and I think the House recognises that there is very strong feeling throughout the country against Departments being swollen more and more in this direction. There is nothing that angers the struggling shopkeeper more than the frequent visits of inspectors, who very often have to justify their existence
by worrying a man who has great difficulty in earning a livelihood. If that is not to be done by the inspector, is it to be done under Sub-section (5) or Clause 1, which says:
If an application for the making of an Order under this Section is made to the Board by or on behalf of any body of persons concerned in any trade or manufacture, the Board shall, if they are satisfied that that body represents a substantial part of the interests concerned, forthwith take into consideration the question of making such an Order and make such inquiries as they think necessary for the purpose.
Is not the danger that almost every trade will now be put on to inquiring what hindrance they can put in the way of other goods? It will mean that almost every trade will have to look round very carefully to see what goods are competing with their own. Then there will be the old sort of influence brought to bear in one way or the other upon the Departments concerned, in order that these goods that are competing with theirs may be subject to some interference. It will put a premium on such interference. It will give to certain big organisations in this country—and if the trades are small they can join together in order to be more powerful—power to harass and interfere with, and perhaps to destroy, some of the trade of those who are competing with them. Supposing that the Board of Trade should make a wrong decision or an unfair decision, what appeal is there? As far as I read the Bill, there is no substantial remedy given. If they make their appeal to the Department which they think is offending, the remedy will not be worth very much.
There is in this first Clause a danger that the small retail shopkeeper might be very heavily hit. If the Bill does go upstairs I hope that there will be brought to bear on it a very long and careful and scrutinizing inquiry, having regard to the fact that it means that the Board of Trade will have its finger in almost every industrial pie in the country. I had hoped that steps would have been taken to have lessened that power of interference. When a Government Department interferes in trade the onus should be on the Department to prove the necessity of so doing. Traders should, as far as possible, be allowed to manage their own affairs. We all want to stop any fraud that may
be practised. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to tell us that, not merely did a Committee so report, but that there is ample evidence of people being wronged in the matter, that people are being made to pay wrongly for something they do not get and are not getting a fair consideration for their money. If that be shown, there will be a case for the Bill to be sent to Committee, and I hope that then there will be ample time for every Clause to be gone into carefully so that no injustice may be done.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: A brief study of this Bill seems to show that it will make the confusion brought about by the Safeguarding of Industries Act worse confounded. In every Clause of the Bill there appears to be that interference with trade, of which we have already had numerous examples in the Safeguarding of Industries Act. I wish to draw attention to one particular Clause of the Bill, in so far as it relates to Scotland, and to ask a question with regard to it. Clause 4, Sub-section (2), states:
Provided that, if the case is one in which the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries has under the Merchandise Marks (Prosecutions) Act, 1894, as amended by Sub-section (8) of Section one of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Act 1903. power to prosecute, the foregoing provision shall have effect as if references in the Minister were therein substituted for references to the Board.
That is to say, in these cases the Minister instead of the Board is made the authority with regard to prosecutions. Now I turn to Sub-section (6) and I find this:
In the application of this Section to Scotland the Court of Session shall be substituted for the High Court
That is probably correct. It goes on to say:
The Lord Advocate shall be substituted for the Board.
That is a legal point, with which I am not prepared to deal. What I object to is the next part of the Sub-section, which reads:
The Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.
10.0 P.M.
Why the Board of Agriculture for Scotland? Why not the Secretary for Scotland? In the first ease the Minister of Agriculture is substituted for the Board —that is to say, a Minister, responsible
to this House, who can be attacked on any case in which matters appear to be going wrong. But in the case of Scotland it is not a Minister responsible to the House who is substituted, but the Board of Agriculture, or, in other words, the permanent officials of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland. The same point will arise in regard to the allotment Bill. There, exception will be taken to the Board of Agriculture being included as the authority for certain purposes instead of the Secretary for Scotland. I wish to impress on the Government that they should alter this Sub-section in Committee so as to make the responsible authority the Secretary for Scotland. I have nothing against the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, but from a constitutional point of view the authority should be the Secretary for Scotland, who is the head of the Board, responsible for the proceedings of the Board, and is in a position to be criticised in this House and to have representations made to him if the necessity arises.
I press the point upon the Government in the hope that they will look into it. I find that paragraph 18 in the First Schedule says:
Every local authority is hereby authorised to execute and enforce the provisions of this Order within their area and. except in Scotland, to institute proceedings for any offences against this Order.
That may be susceptible of explanation. If so, perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary, if he replies, will explain why Scotland should be left out.

Major ENTWISTLE: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
I do so mainly because of the provisions of Clause 1 and some other Clauses which are going to impose further restrictions on the trade and industry of the country. We are all, at this time of day, agreed on one thing—that the industry of this country desires as much freedom from bureaucratic control, and the restrictions involved in such control, as is possible at this juncture. We do not want any legislation which is going to hamper trade any further, and the traders of this country are pretty well united in opposition to the Bill. I have
had numerous communications from associations and organisations of traders in my constituency and they look with great alarm on the provisions of the Bill. We have only to look at the first Clause to see the sort of restrictions which are going to be imposed on the already harassed trader. He has got in certain cases to indicate the origin of his goods. We know the difficulty which arises under the Reparations Act and other Acts in determining the question of origin. Are we again to go through all the difficulties which we have experienced in the past?
Then we have it left to the discretion of the Board of Trade whether or not they should make orders requiring the indication of origin. That again is placing the trade of this country under the control of bureaucrats. We have had enough of bureaucratic control and we do not want any more of this interference, however laudable may be the object the Government may have in view. The House should look with great care and close scrutiny on any proposals of this kind to reimpose such control. The matter is left to the discretion of the Board of Trade if they are of opinion that certain conditions exist. As the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) asked, how are they going to determine what their opinion is? It necessitates no doubt the setting up of committees of inquiry. We shall have over again the farcical procedure we have already experienced under the Safeguarding of Industries Act where interminable inquiries are held into cases in which the result as a rule is a foregone conclusion. Traders will not know what future conditions they have to cope with and they cannot place forward contracts because of the doubts and the hesitancy which exist as to what action the Board of Trade is going to take in these matters. These things, though they may be pinpricks, in their cumulative effect are doing great harm to the trade of this country, and I think this House, before embarking once more on legislation which reimposes this bureaucratic control, should hesitate, and I hope that it will support my Amendment.

Mr. PENRY WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment, and I do it really on the broad lines that the time for a measure of this kind is inopportune. It must have one effect, and one effect only,
and that is to raise the price of goods to the consumer. If you do that at a time like this, when wages are falling, when money is scarce, when people, especially the working classes, have great difficulty in living and paying their way, you are inflicting upon the general community a grievous wrong. This Bill is not brought in at the dictation of the consumer. The consumer is not complaining that he is getting cheap foreign goods, or that he is buying goods that are open to queston as to their country of origin. I doubt whether the Board of Trade has received a single complaint from a person who has been shopping in the markets of this City during the last six or eight months. The whole object of consumers to-day is to chop down prices. They do not care whether goods are manufactured in this country, or in Germany or in France. Their great object is to get a good article, and as cheaply as possible.
I think we have cause of complaint against the Government for the explanation which they gave when they introduced this Bill. The hon. Baronet who introduced it clearly did not tell us the whole of the story, and it was left to the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield (Sir S. Roberts) to enlighten the House on a very important matter, which, I venture to say, would have come with better grace from the Government Bench. In Clause 1 there are certain conditions under which the Board may make an Order. But that surely is not to apply to all goods of a particular class "by reason of their form, get-up, style or finish, or otherwise." The hon. Gentleman told the House that there had been communications passing between the Sheffield manufacturers and the Board of Trade, and that the Board of Trade had agreed, as I understand it, to introduce very important Amendments. I think that was an important agreement between the Sheffield manufacturers and the Government which should have been revealed to this House when this Bill was introduced by the Government. I think it is a very dangerous Measure. It is intended as part of the system of Protection to which this Government has committed itself, and I think that we, whose primary object is to look after the interests of the consumer, should oppose
this Measure by every means in our power.

Mr. MOSLEY: The hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill must once again have breathed a fervent prayer that he might be saved from his friends when he listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who hailed this Measure as the first step towards that glorious system of our national affairs where we should be entirely self-supporting, neither importing nor exporting any commodities. The hon. Gentleman forebore to explain exactly how this country could support itself without the import of foodstuffs and the export of manufactured articles in return, but he hailed this Measure as the first step towards that complete and beneficent system. One must admit, in reading this Bill, that some part of his aspirations is supported by the facts, for it very definitely reposes in the hands of a Government Department the power to discriminate adversely against imported foodstuffs, and in thin respect it differs very sharply from any previous attempts of this Government in protective legislation. Not only do we find foodstuffs for the first time brought within the purview of this protective system, but also we find the most vicious form of Protection being introduced, in that the protective system is not laid down within definite legislative limits, but is imposed within the power of a Government Department to act in bureaucratic control of trade. It has emerged in this Debate that there are cases existing which are vicious, and should be stopped, but the hon. Gentleman failed entirely to adduce proof that a Measure of such an extensive character as this is required; and, further, he also failed to adumbrate the difficulties which may arise if such extensive powers of prosecution are granted to the residents of any locality whose name may be infringed by the foreign importer.
It really did appear that the hon. Gentleman's advisers had not entirely foreseen the extent to which this Measure might lead, and it would be interesting to hear from the hon. Gentleman exactly what step he would contemplate in the event of action being taken by the residents in any locality, such as Oxford or Banbury, to prevent the use of the names of their towns, and for the protection of
the marks of such commodities as shoes or cakes. Will he tell us whether he contemplated such action when he drafted the Bill for, apparently, other purposes, and can he tell us whether he will be able to introduce any modification of this Measure which would meet such obvious abuses of its intention? Could the hon. Gentleman also enlighten us as to the exact meaning of the provision for the marking of imported foodstuffs? Is every apple or banana which is taken out of its original receptacle, and placed for sale upon the stall or counter, to be stamped with the country of origin? In what manner does the hon. Gentleman propose to safeguard himself in the sale of isolated commodities of this character? It really does appear that one more burden is being added by this Bill to the shoulders of the already harassed small shopkeeper, the man who staggers beneath a great weight of official restrictions already. Further than that, it imposes in the hands of a Government Department a power of discrimination in the case of imported foodstuffs and commodities, and seeks to invest our bureaucracy with exactly those powers which this House has so strenuously resisted in the many abortive Measures this Government has introduced. Therefore, I claim that it does need a certain amount of elucidation which, admirable as the hon. Member's opening statement was as far as it went, was not present in that statement in regard to all the provisions of this remarkable Measure.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: It must be admitted that the object of this Bill is to encourage the sale of British goods and at the same time to restrict as much as possible the introduction of foreign goods, and that being so, it is clearly a Protectionist Measure. I would suggest to the Government that this is the very worst time they could select for bringing in a Bill of this kind, because what we want is freedom in the passage of goods between one nation and another, and not to hamper the trade of the country. The point I want to emphasise is this, that I think my right hon. Friends may be hoist with their own petard. If goods have to be marked with their place of origin, other countries may benefit rather than ourselves. It is a splendid advertisement. I recollect, some 30 years ago, I think it was. there was an Act of
Parliament passed which required a certain well-known statement to be put upon goods: "Made in Germany." What was the effect of that? The German goods were made well, and they were known and appreciated, and were wanted by different countries and our own Colonies, and we suffered very much in consequence of the introduction of those words. If I am right in my memory, something had to be done to stop the effect of that. I suggest that the Government should be extremely careful with this Bill, because it may have the very opposite effect to that which they intend.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I should like to ask those in charge of this Bill whether there is anything in it, which restricts its operation to countries other than those within the commonwealth of nations known as the British Empire? As far as I can see, the governing Clause, Clause 1, merely says "outside the United Kingdom." Suppose that in Canada there is a class of goods made which is manufactured on the model of British imports to Canada, or to Australia, or to New Zealand, or to any other part of the British Empire. It is very well known, as a matter of fact, that British models are very largely copied in our Dominions beyond the seas and that they send into this country very effective goods in competition with the manufactures here. What are the powers of the Board of Trade in this respect? The Bill says that whenever there is likely to arise a false impression, these powers come into full play. I do not know, of course, what the Department may develop into, but it really looks at present as if the war spirit still dominates even a Department presided over by so common-sense a President as my right hon. Friend, who is at present at the head of it, and his very able, efficient, and courteous assistant. There is nothing in the world to prevent that. They are bound to act upon it. They have no discretion left at all. Acts of Parliament are not passed merely for the purpose of being put on the Statute Book, as my right hon. Friend knows very well in connection with the Safeguarding of Industries Act. There are a very large number of Members of this House, perhaps some on the Treasury Bench, who would only be too glad if it were not put into operation. If, however, you
pass an Act of Parliament the plain duty of any Minister who has any self-respect and any respect for his Department is to administer it.
Admitting that as a. sound principle, what is going to happen in this matter? We have those goods made by our fellow citizens put upon the British market. They may be the subject of complaint by the British manufacturer. It does not matter at all to the British manufacturer whether the goods in competition with his come from Australia or Germany. If they do compete he has a grievance that his business is injured and a complaint, is accordingly lodged. What is the Board of Trade going to do? They have to make inquiries such as will enable them to exercise their powers, and then may come to the conclusion that a false impression has been created. On whose part? It does not imply mala fides on the part of the exporter at all. It simply means that goods are made that under the Clause of such form, get-up, style, or finish, or otherwise, that they are likely to create an incorrect impression on the buyer. It is not intended to suggest any unfair competition, any dark design, any sinister device on the part of Germany or any other Power to oust the British manufacturer. You are proceeding here to protect the buyer. You are going to protect him from the manufactures of our fellow citizens overseas. That is what the Bill says. That is what Departmental control run mad has come to. Thus it has come about that the Departments have managed to put their Bills on the Order Paper. They notice how the business of the House is arranged, and they say: "Here is a glorious opportunity, seeing things are not so active in the House of Commons as they were, of getting our little Bill run through." His Majesty's Opposition gets rather tired and Members of it want their meals like other people. Here, they say, is an opportunity of developing the special interests of the British people. Here is another example of which the whole Order Paper is full. I hope the House of Commons is going to awaken to the fact, that Members are alive to the way in which these little Acts of Parliament are carrying on the control of the War into peace time. The Opposition, with some slight assistance from other hon. Members, are fighting for the
liberty of the subject. There is a real danger unless the House of Commons guards against it, that we shall have all the most objectionable shackles of the War which were laid upon us by Orders in Council put on us permanently by Act of Parliament. That is one of the reasons why we are exercising such Parliamentary gifts as we may possess in order to see that such measures as this shall receive very careful examination before they receive a Second Reading. So far as I understand it, the font el origo of this Bill comes from Sheffield. "We know that man; he comes from Sheffield." Is the special interest of the man from Sheffield to be utilised to impose a new form of Protection.

Sir S. ROBERTS: Other places are equally interested.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I want to know what other interests have placed their case before the Board of Trade, and what case has been made out for interests which are wider spread than Sheffield and one or two other important industries. What is the general case for this Bill? Let hon. Members look through this Measure, and they will come to much the same conclusion as I have clone. This Bill teams with fresh officials, new Sub-Departments and legal points of the most abstruse description. I hope that further consideration will be given to this Measure, and I hope that the arguments used which have been so full of sound substance will have this effect upon the President of the Board of Trade, that if it goes to the Committee such points as we have raised will receive very careful consideration. There are some parts of this Bill to which not very much objection can be taken. I suppose that the unauthorised use of Royal Arms and devices, and titles of that kind is perhaps a matter for legislation, but I do not know. I should have thought that we already possessed sufficient administrative power in the executive to deal with such matters. The main objections raised to this Bill require most careful examination.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): Certainly.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I note that the President of the Board of Trade assents to that, but the objection which the House of Commons is entitled to make is that all these matters ought to be
fought out before the Bill is presented to the House. Here we have a Clause like Clause 1 drawn in the most wide and sweeping terms laid before the House— I do not know whether it is a new Departmental idea—on. the principle of laying; down the greatest measure of power that can be given with any degree of reasonableness in a Bill in order to see how the House will take it. I do not think that is the way in which Bills should be presented to this House. Yet that is the sort of thing evident in this first Clause. I do not know who was responsible for drafting it, but it seems to have been inspired by such a spirit as that, leaving it to the Committee to cut these powers down. Is that the way in which the House of Commons should be treated? I submit that this Measure, as land before the House, is not worthy of the Second Reading which the Government asks for it.

Mr. BALDWIN: I have no complaint to make of the Debate which has taken place. As I expected, the bulk of the criticism from those who have taken the pains to read the Bill is criticism directed against various points which naturally present themselves for consideration on the Committee stage. I should like to make a few remarks in answer to what has fallen from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last. Both he and I, seated on opposite sides of this Table, very often find ourselves in a certain amount of agreement.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Hear, hear!

Mr. BALDWIN: With a certain amount of what he has said this evening I find myself in agreement. It may be that what he said about Bills being presented in a. hurry does apply to some Bills, but it is not true of this Measure. I should like to say something about the genesis of this Bill. Just three years ago, under the regime of my predecessor (Sir Auckland Geddes), now our distinguished Ambassador to Washington, the matter of merchandise marks and the question of bringing the old Merchandise Marks Act up to date, was brought before him by his Advisory Council, that is an Advisory Council not of bureaucrats but of business men, and, as a result of the case which was put before him, the right hon. Gentleman appointed a Departmental
Committee to examine the whole question. Their Report was published in 1920, and is no doubt familiar, together with the evidence they took, to many Members of this House. Owing to the pressure of business in this House, and also owing to the difficulty of drafting an Act which would meet the manifold points which were raised, a delay of two years has occurred. I do not think the time has been wasted, because in the interval naturally we have had an opportunity to give very careful consideration to the question, and we have cut out here and there parts of the Report of the- Committee which did not seem to us to deal with the one point we wanted to deal with, and that is the stoppage, as far as we can, of fraudulent practices, that is to say, of attempts to make goods appear as British goods and be sold as British goods when in fact they are not. If that gives protection, it is a protective Bill; but in any of the conventional uses of the word "protection" it is not a protective Bill.
I could not help wondering, when I heard some of the criticisms which were applied to Clause 3, whether hon. Members realise that what we are asking for is a continuation of a few of those Orders which have been in existence in this country for five years, have been tested by their working, and have given so much satisfaction to the consumer that, at the request of the Leader of the Labour party, we consented to put that Clause into the Bill. We gave an undertaking some time ago, I think, that the existing provisions as to the marking of imported eggs and meat should be continued, and that we have done. I freely admit, however, with those who have criticised in sincerity our Bill, that it needs a great deal of careful examination in Committee. It is an extraordinarily difficult task to make a Bill of this kind effective and at the same time one which will not go outside of what we want to perform. When the Bill goes into Committee, we shall be prepared to consider any Amendments that may help us to attain the object of our Bill and that will improve and simplify it. The last thing I desire is to push this Bill through in an undigested form. That is not my intention at all.
I would just say one other thing. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that anyone looking at the first Sub-
section would feel a little natural alarm. It has been a very difficult matter to find the best way of dealing, and dealing promptly, with the kind of complaints which will be brought forward. We put that forward as, on the whole, the best machinery we have been able to devise. I can assure my right hon. Friend and the House that it is no question of flinging before the House anything. What we put before the House is something which we have considered very carefully, and which was recommended, in fact, by the Committee; but there is no part of the machinery to which I am pledged, if I can be shown a better way of effecting what we have in view. I am sure that the general verdict of the House would be in favour of an effective Measure to secure the objects that we have in view, and I hope that all those who agree with us in that principle will give the Bill a Second Reading, on the understanding that in Committee we shall do all we can to make it an effective Measure for the purpose, but for no other purpose than that which we have in view.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the Scottish point, which I put to him, as to why the Board of Agriculture for Scotland is put into the Bill instead of the Secretary for Scotland? Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to substitute the Secretary for Scotland for the Board of Agriculture?

Mr. BALDWIN: In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, I am not a Parliamentary draftsman. I have no objection to the term, and the Secretary for Scotland is meant; but Parliamentary draftsmanship is a curious thing, and he sometimes appears, as he does here, as the Board of Agriculture. If it is possible to do the same thing and use those words, I have no objection at all to doing so.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Thank you very much.

Mr. HOGGE: I am obliged to the President of the Board of Trade for the certain amount of reply which he has given to the discussion, but I do not think he has really dealt with all the points that have been raised. There is one thing to which we ought to draw his attention. He first of all replies to us by saying that this is not an undigested Measure: that, as a
matter of fact, his predecessor, Sir Auckland Geddes, set up a Committee which reported in 1920; and that, following that Report, they themselves have taken two years to draft this Measure for which he is asking a Second Reading. And then he says that in spite of that this Bill requires the most careful examination in Committee. That is surely an extraordinary position for the Government, in the month of June, rising in August, to bring in a first-class Measure of this kind.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It came down to us from another place.

Mr. HOGGE: But the other place is controlled by the Treasury Bench. It is only for the convenience of that bench. The trouble is that, whether they are beaten in the House of Lords or beaten here, they take no notice of the expression of public opinion. There is nothing that can make an impression on the Government Bench, not even on the President of the Board of Trade. He himself said he was once of those ordinary business men. Does he really think it is a business proposition, after a Committee has inquired into this and reported in 1920, that the Government should come down with a Bill that they have taken two years to digest and turn it out in this undigested form, in such a form indeed that they plead as an excuse why we should give it a Second Reading, that they will allow us to make the most careful and meticulous examination of the Bill upstairs. This House will make a great mistake if it puts any reliance on the opportunities which this Government will give it upstairs to investigate any Measure which is sent there. On the Measure itself we have had no reply at all to the questions put by myself and others. This means a roving commission for the Board of Trade for this branch of industry. We have an example already in the Schedule of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and in the number of officials who have been created, of what the administration of any Act of Parliament interfering with commerce and business means. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us what he thinks this will mean in extra expenditure, in extra staff and in the loss of business to the people of this country. The consumer is the least likely to be tricked into buying goods he does not want, and if the Government are going to pursue this with
regard to goods which are imported they have a tremendous field in front of them in the goods sold in ordinary commerce in this country. Look at the advertisements which appear in our public Press and on the posters with regard to goods which everyone is invited to buy from day to day. The description of these goods is as foreign to their nature as the form of get-up, style or finish of any goods sent to this country. As a matter of fact, what does it come back to at the finish? Any trade of that kind that comes from abroad is a competition with a certain trade which is languishing in this country. The history of Free Trade in this country has been that we have pushed out of this country the lower paid classes of trade and we have employed the more skilled and higher paid branches of every industry. The reason that you have this competition from abroad is that we have pushed out these cheaper trades through the operation of Free Trade. It is a very good thing for the worker and the consumer in this country that these cheaper trades have been pushed into countries where the economic conditions are worse, and where they work longer hours for lower wages. By this Bill the right hon. Gentleman is interfering with a system which has kept this country prosperous.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am not sure that I understand the effect of Clause 1. I would remind the Government that when the first Merchandise Marks Act was introduced a good many years ago, the general idea was that by marking foreign-made goods we should be encouraging and promoting the sale of articles made in England; but the reverse of that took place. What happened was that when the public were aware that a certain article was made in Germany, and they knew they could get it at a lower price than a similar article made in the United Kingdom, they invariably asked for the article made in Germany. The result of the Merchandise Marks Act was that instead of promoting the sale of British goods it promoted the sale of foreign goods. There was some alteration in a further Merchandise Marks Act.
The object of the first Clause of this Bill, which seems to be the only Clause which is open to objection, is to perpetuate the mistake which was made in
the first Merchandise Marks Act, and to allow the Government to go into a person's business and say: "In our opinion, the way in which you have finished this article, which was imported from abroad, is to give the impression that it is an English article, and not a foreign article. Therefore, we are going to insist that you shall put upon this article a statement showing where it came from." That will entail a considerable amount of expense for inspectors and other people. The taxation of the country is extremely heavy at the present time, and I should be against doing anything which would create more inspectors and more salaries, even if I thought it was going to do any good. I am speaking as a Protectionist. I have always been a Protectionist. Nobody can read from any book; certainly, if the President of the Board of Trade has a book, as had the Colonial Secretary yesterday, he cannot read anything to show that I have in any way changed my opinions. I hope I shall always remain a Protectionist. I do not think this Bill is the proper method to carry out what I believe to be the right policy, namely, a Protectionist policy. It seems to me that this Clause is only going to give rise to extra expense, and to do no good to anybody. Therefore, I agree with the remarks of the Opposition that, towards the middle of July, in a Session which, we understand, is going to close very shortly, it is presuming on the good nature of the House to bring in a Bill of this sort at such a late period. We have managed to get along without this Bill during the last few years, and we could get along without it for a little while longer. If the Bill is going to be passed, it will require very considerable amending in Committee. I am inclined to think it may be as well to leave Clause 1 out altogether. I have not had time to look at the Bill with care, but it appears that the other Clauses are devised with the intention of preventing fraud by people selling as a certain article something which is quite different. With that I thoroughly agree. I hope, however, that the President of the Board of Trade will not endeavour to force either the Committee which considers this Bill, nor the House on the Report stage, to accept Clause 1 unless he can give very good reasons for recommending its acceptance.

Question put, "That the word now stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 55.

Division No. 206.]
AYES.
[10.55 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Green, Albert (Derby)
Parker, James


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Pease, Rt, Hon. Herbert Pike


Atkey, A. R.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Perkins, Waiter Frank


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Greer, Sir Harry
Perring, William George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gregory, Holman
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Pratt, John William


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Preston, Sir W. R.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Reid, D. D.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Remer, J. R.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hamilton, Sir George C.
Renwick, Sir George


Blair, Sir Reginald
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hills, Major John Waller
Rodger, A. K.


Brown, Major D. C.
Hohler, Gerald Fltzroy
Royce, William Stapleton


Brown, Brig. Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Bruton, Sir James
Hopkins, John W. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Koufton, John Plowright
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Butcher, Sir John George
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Seddon, J. A.


Campion, Lieut-Colonel W. R.
Jephcott, A. R.
Shaw, Hon. Alex (Kilmarnock)


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Jesson, C.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Casey, T. W.
Jodreil, Neville Paul
Sitch, Charles H.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Kellaway, Rt. Hon Fredk. George
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Kennedy) Thomas
Stanton, Charles Butt


Clough, Sir Robert
Kidd, James
Stewart, Gershom


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sugden, W. H.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Sutherland, Sir William


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Lloyd, George Butler
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Thomson, Sir W Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Davidson, J. C. C.(Kernel Hempstead)
Lorden, John William
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lort-Williams, J.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camiachie)
Waddington. R.


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Doyle, N. Grattan
Macquisten, F. A.
Waring, Major Waiter


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Manville, Edward
Waterson, A. E.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Mason, Robert
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Elveden, Viscount
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.


Evans, Ernest
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Foreman, Sir Henry
Murchison, C. K.
Windsor, Viscount


Forestier-Walker, L.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wise, Frederick


Forrest, Walter
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonei Francis E.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.



Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
O'Grady, Captain James
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Gould, James C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Dudley Ward.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothlan)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Grundy, T. W.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Myers, Thomas


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Halls, Walter
Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan)


Cairns, John
Hayward, Evan
Poison, Sir Thomas A.


Cape. Thomas
Hirst, G. H.
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Hogge, James Myles
Rendall, Athelstan


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robertson. John


Foot, Isaac
Kenyon, Barnet
Sexton, James


Galbraith, Samuel
Lawson, John James
Spencer, George A.


Gillis, William
Lunn, William
Swan, J. E.


Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. O.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge)


Tillett, Benjamin
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
Wintringham, Margaret


Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough, E.)



Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
Wilson, James (Dudley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —




Major Entwistle and Mr. Ammon.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir J. BAIRD: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
11.0 P.M.
This is a very simple Bill, brought in to meet a very widespread demand. The object of the Bill is to restore and even to extend the conditions under which British nationality can be retained by members of our race living in foreign countries. Up to the year 1730 British nationality was controlled by the common law, and no one who was born outside His Majesty's Dominions could, up to that time, be a British subject. Then a law was passed enabling the son of a man who was a British subject, and was born abroad, to retain British nationality. That was extended in the year 1772 to the grandson of the original British subject when he went abroad. That state of affairs continued until the year 1914. For reasons which it is not necessary to state now, that principle was altered in the year 1914. The continuation of British nationality was restricted to the son of the original British subject, and grandsons of an Englishman or Scotchman who migrated could not by any possibility retain British nationality. That principle was agreed to by the representatives of the Dominions, and it was also the result of the recommendations of a powerful Departmental Committee which reported in 1901. But since the War there have been many complaints—with which every one will sympathise—of the injustice of this state of affairs. A man, for instance, whose father migrated to the Argentine, and who grew up in the Argentine as a British subject, went to the front and fought for us during the War. His son cannot, under the existing law, be a British subject. That is felt to be a great hardship. I mention the Argentine as an example. As hon. Members recollect, men came from all over the world and
fought for us, and they are in the same condition. In the simplest possible way this Bill alters and remedies that state of affairs, and not only makes the conditions what they were before the Act of 1914 was passed, but greatly improves those conditions. If hon. Members will refer to the Bill, they will sec that it effects the object in view by the amendment of two Sections of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, and it provides that every child born abroad of a British father shall be a British subject, if two main conditions, calculated to show continued connection and sympathy with the British Empire, are fulfilled. The difference between what this Bill provides and the condition which existed before the 1914 Act, is that whereas before 1914 a man could only extend British nationality to his grandchildren, any Englishman, Scotsman, or other British subject living abroad can extend British nationality indefinitely, so long as two conditions are fulfilled, calculated to show that they are interested in maintaining a connection with the Empire. These conditions are as follows: That the birth of the child is at the time registered at a British consulate and that the child, on obtaining majority, asserts his British nationality by a declaration duly registered That is a perfectly fair and straightforward method of ascertaining, in the first place, whether or not a man is anxious that his child should be a British subject, and, in the second place, whether the child, when he reaches the age of 21, is himself anxious to be a British subject. If both the father and the child are anxious that the child should be a British subject, the faculties are given him. That covers the gap which has existed between 1915 and now, and therefore deals with the case of the children of the men who went out and fought for us, and, obviously, all the children who were born after the Act of 1914 was passed. There are really no Committee points at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes!"] As far as I can see, there is hardly any possibility of amending the Bill in Committee, in the direction of making it clearer. At any rate, on
Second Reading there is very little to be said, and I hope the House will give the Second Reading without unduly prolonged discussion.

Sir D. MACLEAN: This is a Bill to which, as far as I am concerned, there is no objection at all, especially as there are two conditions to toe complied with. I think it would have been improper if only the first condition were required— namely, that the child should be registered at a British Consulate. That would be compulsorily imposing British nationality on a person resident abroad, but under the Bill he must clothe himself with British citizenship, and exercise an option of his own, when he attains the age of 21. In these circumstances, while there may be points in Committee, I am not aware of any objection to Second Reading.

Mr. HOPKINS: I congratulate the Government on having brought in this Measure, though I cannot congratulate them on the speed with which it has been done, because this grievance has existed and has been felt in every British community abroad for the last seven years. The British communities abroad will welcome the Measure with gratitude, and it will remove a grievance keenly felt by those men who came over and fought for this country. They felt it bitterly that their children should be excluded from the right to call themselves Britishers. It is not only a question of justice, but it is a question of the interests of this country. There is just one point which might be considered, and that is, whether some power ought not to be put into the Bill under which some authority could excuse those cases where, by reason of long distance from British Consulates, or illness, or any other force majeure, it is impossible to register the birth of a child within 12 months. If that were put in, I think it would meet the views.

Mr. MANVILLE: I should like to support the suggestion of the hon. Member for South East St. Pancras (Mr. Hopkins). We have had experience during the last few years of representations made by British chambers of commerce abroad with regard to British subjects. The want of recognition of those wholly British subjects abroad who, under the British law, could not be registered as
such, has been keenly felt. I am sure if this Measure be passed it will give a very great deal of satisfaction to loyal British subjects of the British Empire who reside abroad.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: This is, of course, a very excellent: Bill, but I want to clear up one point in connection with it. Sub-section (I, a) of Clause I refers to a birth being registered at a British Consulate within 12 months. I take it that that registration can be in writing, because, if not, a very serious inconvenience will be caused. For instance, there are British subjects all over the United States to whom this Bill would apply. In many cases they are far removed from a British Consulate, and unless it be competent for a British subject in some far away place to register with the nearest British Consulate in writing, it will necessitate a long journey and great expense, and, probably in many cases, nullify the object of the Bill. There is only one other point, and that is in reference to Sub-section (2, i) What limit is there to be to Regulations made under this Bill, and for what reasons are the Regulations to be made? It does seem to me that we should not pass a Clause which allows unlimited Regulations of any sort or kind to be made by the Department, and I hope in Committee the hon. Gentleman will explain exactly what he has in mind in reference to these Regulations.

Mr. STEWART: As one who has lived a good many years of his life abroad, I should like to thank the Government for bringing in this Bill, which will remove a great hardship, and be a great boon to many people who live in exile in distant lands, and have not been able to acquire enough money to retire to spend their last years in their own country. I think it is a wise Measure, because it adds to our outposts and friends in every quarter of the globe, and gives all our brother-countrymen in distant lands a great consolation and pride in remaining Englishmen, especially our subjects in Japan. They do not wish to become Japanese, and this Bill will relieve them. It will also meet a great difficulty in regard to the sons of our citizens in South America, where a man is liable to military service unless he can prove that he is a British citizen. I have worried the Foreign Office on this point a good deal,
and I would like to say how much I appreciate the Government bringing in the Bill.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: I wish to join in the congratulations to the Government in removing at any rate one of the anomalies of our existing law of nationality. May I express the hope that the Government will before long bring in the long-promised and long-overdue Bill of a larger character which will deal with many other existing anomalies in our nationality law? There is only one question that I want to ask. I presume that the assent of the Dominions has been received to this Bill, and that it will be followed by legislation in the Dominions, because nothing is more important than that British citizenship should, so far as possible, rest on the same basis, confer the same privileges, and be granted under the same conditions throughout the whole of our Empire.

Sir STANLEY JOHNSON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will explain to the House why it is not possible to omit the second condition on which British nationality can be acquired by a child. This particular point is felt very strongly by British subjects resident abroad As the Bill stands, the position of a child born abroad of British parents will be a somewhat anomalous one until the child attains the age of 21 and can make his or her own declaration. I agree with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher). Is it not possible to arrive at some basis by which a very simple process will immediately confer upon the children of British subjects born abroad the status of the whole British nationality? That presses very keenly on many British subjects resident abroad, and I hope that we shall have some indication as to whether it is not possible to do something towards giving children, even in their childhood, the full birthright which British subjects who are resident abroad would like to secure for their children abroad.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I think we can take congratulations as the mind of the House on this Bill, but I wish to ask a question. This is a Bill to make it more easy for the children of British citizens who are born abroad to retain their status as British citizens, but there is nothing
in the Bill which gives any indication that the Government have in their mind a process whereby large numbers of British citizens who have gone abroad to take up posts under foreign Governments, and who have had to become naturalised under those Governments and may now be desirous of resuming British nationality, can do so. I have in mind a case of an individual— and this is only typical of a large number —who in the old Russian Government was in a very influential position in one of the harbours. He had to become a naturalised Russian subject in order to hold the position. During the War he rendered a great deal of assistance, not only to the British Army who were there, but also to the naval ships which put into that harbour. He came back to this country at the Russian Revolution, having assisted a great many of the British soldiers, and when he came homo he desired to resume his British nationality. There was a considerable trouble with the British Government returning his papers, declining to recognise him, or in any way look upon him as one who was entitled to become a British subject again. It was after many months of trouble, interviews with the Home Secretary, and almost daily correspondence that he was allowed to resume his British nationality. In a Bill of this character, I consider it should be possible to bring into it a short Clause whereby those who have been abroad because of their occupation in foreign countries and are now coming back into the British Dominions may easily resume their British nationality.

OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I do so for a very sound reason. The Government have now got seven quite important Orders, and it is twenty
minutes past Eleven o'clock. The suspension of the Eleven o'clock rule was asked for, I presume, in the expectation that the first Order, which was of a highly controversial nature, might perhaps run to 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock. The Government, quite naturally, desired to obtain some other Orders. The first Bill, however, went through without a Division, and the other Orders were proceeded with without any more discussion. We have now arrived at No. 8 on the Order Paper. The Government have had six Second Readings and one Committee.
The Order upon which we have entered is not one to which I personally take objection, but, however desirable the object, I am quite certain that it is a bad practice on this House to pass Bills without adequate discussion. Take the last Order. It seemed a short one, but hon. Members rose—I listened very carefully—and in the discussion at least three very useful points were brought out. I do not think that in the Measure before the House there will be any opposition, but there may be some Members desirous of making a better Measure of it; and therefore I do not think we should be asked to take it at twenty-five minutes past eleven o'clock, especially after such a record of work. The other night we got no less than nine Orders—Second and Third Readings. I suggest that this is another evidence of the desire of the Department to rush a large number of Bills through the House without their receiving adequate discussion. There is no desire to unduly prolong the proceedings in reference to this or any other Order on the Paper and we do not want to keep the House sitting late into August because that would benefit nobody. I ask the Colonial Secretary to meet the wishes of a large number of hon. Members who have been here all day. I wish to see that fair and adequate discussion is given to all these Orders, and I urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept my Motion and allow us to go home after a very good day's work.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): I hope my right hon. Friend will not deny us the next two Orders, namely the Second Heading of the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (Payment of Calls) Bill. Everyone who has studied the question will share the
right hon. Gentleman's feeling that the multiplication of Bills at this stage of the Session is a very considerable burden upon the House. This difficulty does not arise simply from the keenness of departments to get these things settled, but it arises from the rapidly growing complication of our public life. In every sphere it is growing in complexity, and this multiplication of departmental Bills is a feature of that ever growing complication. Where are we going to in regard to public business? This has been a Session without a controversial Bill or a controversial Budget, and yet here we are nearing the end of the first week in July. We still have an enormous mass of business to discharge, with the practical certainty that we shall have to come back in October to deal with a great block of Irish business that will have to come before us if the Free State make good. Therefore, we really must have help from the House to get on. I agree that we ought not to attempt this sort of legislation in an underhand fashion. The Order we are now considering is one upon which there is no dispute. The details could be very well examined in Committee upstairs; and I do not think it is asking too much when I request that this and the next Order on the Paper may be taken. On these measures there is no dispute as between the Government and the Opposition, and great public; inconvenience will be caused if they are no; passed. This can only be avoided by the House moving these Orders out of the way at a Sitting like this, devoted entirely to small Bills. For these reasons I hope my right hon. Friend will not persist in his objection to our making further progress. It is perfectly obvious that we cannot go on if the House definitely wishes to resist our progress. I trust my suggestion, which is in the public interest, will be accepted and that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will bear in mind that there is really no party advantage —no advantage as between the Government and the Opposition—to be gained.

Mr. J. W. WILSON: The right hon. Gentleman has alluded somewhat airily to the detailed discussion and full investigation which these Bills—read a second time on Monday night and to-night—are going to receive in the Committees upstairs. I hope that the House, and particularly the Ministers responsible for the Bills, will realise the great strain they are
putting on the Standing Committees, two of which only exist for the purpose of examining these Bills that are being sent upstairs. As far as I can gather from the programme already arranged for them, and laid before me this afternoon, they have sufficient work to occupy all their ordinary sittings for the next two weeks, and seeing the House is expecting to rise at the end of July or early in August what is the use of sending up more Bills in this way? Some of these Bills will certainly require very careful consideration. Ministers have admitted that experience has shown that the Standing Committee system works with increasing difficulty as the end of the Session approaches, and in the last few weeks it is more and more difficult to induce them to sit. They always resent being asked to sit unduly long hours. There are only a limited number of Members sitting on these two Committees, and I repeat the Government should take into consideration the strain which is being put on them.

Mr. HOLMES: I have listened with admiration for some three years to the speeches of the Colonial Secretary, but I never before heard him make one so much in the nature of an appeal ad misericor-diam, as that to which we have just listened, in which he asks us to facilitate the second reading of these measures. There are one or two points in connexion with this Bill which I should like to have cleared up before the Committee stage is taken. For example, we are told that a record is to be kept on every vessel of its operations.

Mr. SPEAKER: We are not now considering the merits of the Bill. The Question is "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Mr. HOLMES: And when that is disposed of, I suppose I shall have an opportunity of discussing on the Motion for the Second Reading the points I desire to raise. I put this to the Colonial Secretary —having regard to the fact that there are a number of points in this Bill which it is desirable to clear up before the measure be sent to a Committee, and having before us our experience in connection with the proceedings on the Trades Union Bill, the debates on which in Committee might have been considerably curtailed had certain questions been cleared up on the motion for Second Reading—would it not be wiser to allow
a reasonable amount of the Parliamentary time for a Second Reading debate on this Bill, and thus save the time of the Committee upstairs, and enable the Bill to go through there with the same ease as a vessel is able to secure a smooth passage through navigable waters on to which oil has been poured?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I want also to appeal to the Colonial Secretary to have these Bills withdrawn for to-night. The Bill which was before the House when this Motion was moved contains sufficient matter to make about 30 offences involving penalties, and it is too much to ask hon. Members to allow a Bill of this character to go through in a merely perfunctory manner. The Colonial Secretary suggests that these Bills can go to Committee upstairs, and that it will only be Committee points that will be brought out here. But it must be borne in mind that certain Members are also Members of the Committee upstairs, and that Committee sits in the morning. To carry on the Debate until the small hours of the morning, and expect Members to come back at eleven to sit on Committees—having tried, perhaps, while they are here in the small hours of the morning, to draft Amendments to the Bills they are going to discuss—is to put far too severe a strain upon them.
The other Bill to which we are asked to give a Third Reading is one which received considerable discussion on the Floor of the House, and Members took up a very determined attitude upon it. The same feeling might arise to-night if the Bill were now brought before the House, and, even with the number of Orders on the Paper, I think it is not too much to ask the Government to defer the discussion of these two Bills until a more suitable opportunity. We have done well for one day, and surely the Government might rest upon their laurels and allow the Debate to be adjourned till to-morrow, when we can go into these matters in more detail, and probably bring out those points which we could suggest.

Major ENTWISTLE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not persist in going on with this Bill. I assure him that there are a good many points on which it will meet with considerable opposition, and there is a real, sincere desire to discuss those points. We are not satisfied that the Bill is the innocuous Measure that
the right hon. Gentleman tried to make us believe. He said that the amount of legislation which the Government are passing is necessitated by the complexities of our modern civilised life; but I think a great many of us are convinced now that some of these complexities are due to the excessive legislation which the Government passes, and that if we had a little less legislation we should be freed from some of these complexities. If there is one thing of which every business man in this country is convinced, it is that we want a little rest and surcease from this excessive legislation. We are ridden to death by Bills, and we want to be left alone. If the right hon. Gentleman says that six Measures in one evening is only a little bit on account, I think

it is an extraordinary argument to come from him, particularly as we understand that the Government have now, so to speak, repented of their past sins of over-legislation, and have come to the conclusion that it is time to leave the country with less legislation—that their duty now is to try to administer the country in a little better manner. In view of the fact that there are many points in this Bill about which we are not satisfied, and of which we shall want a good deal of explanation, I think the right hon. Gentleman would save the time of the House in the long run by accepting this Motion.

Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes. 39: Noes, 113.

Division No. 207.]
AYES.
[11.40 p.m.


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Rattan, Peter Wilson


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Rendall, Athelstan


Bromfield. William
Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Robertson, John


Cape, Thomas
Hogae, James Myles
Sitch, Charles H.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Swan, J. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Watts-Morgan. Lieut.-Col, D.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lawson, John James
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Foot, Isaac
Lunn, William
Wintringham, Margaret


Gillis, William
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Myers, Thomas
Lieut.-Colonel Arthur Murray and Mr. Penry Williams.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Moore-Brabazon. Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Fildes, Henry
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Atkey, A. R.
Forest, Walter
Murchison. C. K.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
France, Gerald Ashburner
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Parker, James


Barlow, Sir Montague
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Barnston, Major Harry
Gould, James C.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Pratt, John William


Borwick, Major G. O.
Greer, Sir Harry
Raw, Lieutenant Colonel Dr. N.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Remer, J. R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Renwick, Sir George


Breese, Major Charles E.
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Brown, Major D. C.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Bruton, Sir James
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford. Watford)
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Butcher, Sir John George
Hinds, John
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hood, Sir Joseph
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Casey, T. W.
Hookins, John W. W.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Houfton, John Plowright
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanley. Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon, Fredk. George
Stanton, Charles Butt


Dawson, Sir Philip
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stewart, Gershom


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Lorden, John William
Sugden, W. H.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lort-Williams, J.
Sutherland, Sir William


Edge, Captain Sir William
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Mailalieu, Frederick William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Manville, Edward
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Evans, Ernest
Mason, Robert
Tryon, Major George Clement


Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Waring, Major Walter
Windsor, Viscount
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Lieut.-


Williams. C. (Tavistock)
Wise, Frederick
Colonel Gibbs.


Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

Original Question again proposed.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am sorry that the vials of my right hon. Friend's wrath should be emptied upon the head of this Bill, because I believe, on examination, that it will be found not to be quite so obnoxious as he is tempted to regard it. I will try to give the House one or two indications of what the Bill does and the reasons why I think it deserves to be passed It is sent to us from another place but, unlike the measure that I had the honour of moving in this House some hours ago, which also was sent from another place, I hope the right hon. Gentleman, and those hon. Members who support him will not be able to discover any imperfections whatever in it. The Bill seeks to deal with a problem which is entirely new and which is brought before us by the development of oil for use as fuel and also as a propulsive force. Both of these uses are very important. While one has to exercise considerable care to make sure that nothing in the proposals of the Bill will stop a development of that useful nature, one roust ensure that it does not take place in such a way as to be a cause of danger or a nuisance to other members of the community. Perhaps those hon. Members who have expressed some anxiety about Bills being rushed, will be relieved to hear that this Bill represents the result of discussions over a period of something like 15 months, between all the interests concerned, shipowners, docks and harbour companies, oil companies, and representatives of various local authorities, all of whom have laid their views before the Board of Trade. One Bill represents the substantial agreement of all these interests. One evil that is taking place through the escape of a certain quantity of fuel oil in territorial waters is already serious, and it is likely to become increasingly serious as the use of oil increases. The escape in harbours is actually a source of danger, because there is considerable danger of fire. The escape in seaways and on beaches is a nuisance of a serious character. There is hardly a seaside resort on the narrow waters round the coast, from which complaints have not been received in increasing volume during
the past few years as to the presence of oil on the beaches. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has made the strongest representations to us as to the effect which the oil is having upon bird life. Those interested in the oyster fisheries are finding the escape of oil is a matter of great difficulty, and possibly of menace, to those fisheries, and those interested in fisheries generally are afraid that the presence of oil on the waters at sea is having some effect upon the sea life that moves backwards and forwards in the sea, and the somewhat erratic variations that have taken place in the past few years in the movement of herrings may be due to some extent to the presence of this oil. Therefore, we called those interested, into conference, and this Bill represents agreement amongst all those concerned.
The essence of the Bill is in Clause 1, which makes it a penal offence to discharge oil, or to allow oil to escape into navigable waters within territorial limits, either from a ship, or from a pier or any place on land, or from any apparatus used for the purpose of transferring oil. The remainder of the Bill, including the Clause to which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) drew attention, is merely machinery, I cannot and I do not pretend that this Bill is going to be a complete cure for the nuisance. We can only legislate in this House for those waters which lie within the jurisdiction of His Majesty. We can only legislate for territorial waters, three miles from the shore. A considerable portion of the nuisance, particularly the nuisance which is taking place round the Isle of Thanet and the Essex coast, is undoubtedly due to the oil discharged in the Estuary of the Thames. Of the oil discharged in other estuaries a considerable portion undoubtedly is deposited on neighbouring beaches. A certain amount of oil is discharged at sea, beyond the three-miles limit, and a portion of it washes back to our coasts. For that we cannot be responsible, but we hope to try by some form of international agreement to secure some regulation which will apply to the ships of all nations. We put forward this Bill as representing a substantial measure of agreement, with the
object of eradicating an existing and a growing evil.

Major ENTWISTLE: The speech of the Parliamentary Secretary showed the importance of the Motion for the Adjournment, and the necessity of discussing this Bill. The object of the Bill as explained by the hon. Baronet is very laudable. The protection of our fisheries is a matter of great importance, and if I were convinced that the Bill would have that result it would have my most cordial support. I was glad to hear that that was one of the reasons for which the Bill is introduced. But there is a number of clauses which will operate in a very restrictive way on shippers and other people. For instance, the last clause pro- vides that every shipper should keep a record which shall be at all times liable to inspection by harbour masters, and people on behalf of the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Fishery Board of Scotland, and the Ministry of Commerce for Northern Ireland, and they cannot do any pumping without giving a certain amount of notice, and every vessel shall be open to inspection on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture and other Ministries. These are measures which are somewhat oppressive, and should not be adopted unless the cause is very urgent. I think that the hon. Member has made out a very good case for the Bill, but that it would have been better to deal with it at greater length, in order to explain why this Clause which in other respects is oppressive to another industry should have come about. In any event I am glad that, owing to the protest which we made, we have had a comparatively full explanation from the Member.

12 M.

Mr. HOGGE: I think that we have not really got to the centre of the explanation of the Bill. It sets up another penal offence, and we have not been told how the Parliamentary Secretary proposes to detect the perpetrators of this particular offence. He has told us, for instance, that round the coast of Thanet, or in what he describes as closed waters, there is any amount of this oil floating on the surface, and that it comes in to the shore where it becomes a nuisance and detrimental to bird life around the cost. Everybody who has gone to any watering place will have observed oil floating on the water. But
how can we detect the perpetrators of that offence? We have not jurisdiction out of the three mile limit. After all, the three mile limit round the coast of these islands is an enormous territory to police, and who is going to do it? I do net know whether the hon. Gentleman can tell us whether the Board of Trade have ever thought of that at all, but obviously if you are going to have a proper system of detection, if this is—an offence—and something that ought really to be put down by penalties, you ought to have a proper system of detection. To begin with, I do not see how-it is going to be done. How are you going to distinguish between oil discharged three-and-a-half miles from the coast and within the three-mile limit; how, if it is discharged by some fast steamer outside the three-mile limit are you going to arrest that steamer and bring the perpetrators to justice?
There are a number)' of other iniquitous proposals in this Bill which have not been explained. What is the meaning for the extraordinary Sub-section (1)—
It shall not be lawful between the hours of sunset and sunrise to transfer any oil to or from any vessel lying in any harbour unless notice of intention so to do has been given in accordance with the Section. …
I am not experienced in shipping. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] That is why I am expecting all those who agree to that proposition, and who by that agreement admit that they are experienced to join in this discussion and explain to us—

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: You expect too much!

Mr. HOGGE: You cannot expect too much from the Coalition Government. We hope they will be able intelligently to explain what their Bill means, and that those Members who have experience of shipping will meet the point I propose now to make, despite my inexperience. Boats come in and out of harbours largely on account of the tide. It is a question of high water in the particular port as to whether boats come in or leave. Suppose, as is often the case, that it is necessary for a boat to turn round and get away as soon as possible, here is a further restriction on the movement of many large vessels which says that between sunset and sunrise they dare not load up their vessels with the only article that would
take them out of the harbour unless notice is given of intention so to do. Of course! But, as a matter of fact, it is not always easy to give notice of the day on which you are going to sail.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Only three hours' notice is required.

Mr. HOGGE: It does not say so here.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, it does!

HON. MEMBERS: Subsection (3).

Mr. HOGGE: I am dealing with Subsection (2). When I have reached Subsection (3) I will deal with it. That just shows how premature and inexperienced certain Members are in the discussion of a Bill brought before the House at this time of the night. Here is a restriction imposing another deterrent on all people engaged in industry. I will leave Subsection (2), and come to Subsection (3), which I understand deals with this question of the three hours. Which paragraph?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Subsection (3).

Mr. HOGGE: Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 says notice must be given to the harbour master of the harbour in which the vessel is lying, and shall be of no effect unless given at least three hours and not more than ninety-six hours before the time at which the operation of transferring the oil commences. That means that the owner of the vessel or whoever is in charge of it must find the harbour master or some competent official acting for the harbour master, and obtain permission before transferring the oil. Why should it be necessary to get the harbour master' permission to transfer oil? Is it necessary to get the harbour master's permission to transfer coal from one vessel to another? If there is anything in this development of oil fuel for ships; if we are building ships for oil fuel—as we are largely doing in the Navy—and if these vessels are to be of the same utility as other vessels which sail the seas, these vessels must have the same facilities for working.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Coal-fired vessels do not throw the coal overboard.

Mr. HOGGE: Only a foolish captain would dream of throwing oil overboard
but oil escapes in many mysterious ways. Everybody who has had any experience of machinery, from a motor car to any form of engine knows the difficulty of retaining oil. We are discussing a Bill to prevent oil being strewn around the shores of the country. What about the oil strewn in the streets of this city? It is found impossible in many parts of London for anything but motor-driven vehicles to go along the streets because of the amount of oil emitted from engines and strewn on the roadway. You cannot interfere with a big industry like this and say that a man who owns or controls a vessel burning oil fuel must get this permission before being able to take in fuel. If that is done then no progress will be made in that industry. I also ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is the object of keeping records as provided in Clause 3. I believe I could find a reason. It might be necessary to consult a harbour master inside a limited period, but why in the name of common sense keep these records? There is only one object in keeping a record, namely, that it may be examined. If these records are going to be examined, that means a fresh body of officials and fresh Departmental work. If it is suspected that the s.s. so-and-so on a certain date emitted oil within the three-mile limit, I suppose the news will be telegraphed or wirelessed to her port of destination, and the records will be looked up and she will be dealt with. That means a great number, of new officials. There is a Clause dealing with power to inspect premises and vessels. We do not do that with coal. If oil fuel is all that is claimed for it, why impose these conditions upon it. These are some of the reasons which induce one to believe that it is a mistake to enter upon a discussion at this time of the morning, when one might be enjoying rest instead of trying to pour oil on the troubled waters of those who regret that they have been kept up to support the Government in doing that which it ought not to do at this time of the morning.

Sir GEORGE RENWICK: I think hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are not aware that this is a Bill that has been carefully considered by the Chamber of Shipping, representing the ship-owning interests, by practically all the port and harbour authorities, and by ail the oil interests, the dealers in oil and the storers and carriers of oil. The
hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hoģģe) seems to think we ought to deal with oil in the same way as that in which we deal with coal, and be able to discharge it at night freely and without interference. He evidently has little knowledge of the danger there is in connection with the loading and discharging of oil. Is he aware that in narrow waters oil floats on the water? I myself have known in very recent times of a case where a ship has been lying in a waterway, and somebody has thrown a match over or possibly dropped a bit of hot cinder, and immediately there has been a flame and the ship has become involved in flames. I have known also a case where a ship has been in dry dock, and there has been oil in the bottom of the dry dock, and a boy dropped a cinder, and the whole place was in flames at once. In view of such facts, surely it is not unreasonable that a Bill should be brought in to deal with the situation. I would remind the hon. Members opposite that we are not dealing with oil discharged outside the territorial limit of three miles, but with oil that is discharged in narrow waters, such as harbours, navigable rivers, and canals.
The Bill is imposing great obligations and great penalties upon shipowners and harbour authorities, but they recognise the danger of the thing, and they are prepared in consequence to shoulder these responsibilities. To-morrow one of our great harbour authorities is opening a special dock that has been made to take the ships that are discharging oil, and it is specially fitted up for the purpose. I am invited to go to-morrow to accompany the harbour authorities to open this dock, the construction of which shows the responsibility entailed upon all harbour authorities in dealing with this great danger. Therefore, I hope hon. Members opposite who oppose the Bill will at least not oppose it in the trivial way in which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh opposed it. All these small matters can be dealt with in Committee, but here is a menace and a danger with which we have been threatened for some years, and it is becoming more and more dangerous as the traffic in oil increases. Here is an effort to deal with the matter, and I hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading and send it to Committee upstairs, where any of these small points can be properly dealt with.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Sir G. Renwick) has made a case for the Bill, and has shown how right is our position in this matter, namely, that a beneficial Measure of this kind should be explained to the House and to the country at a time when the Press—for that is what it comes to—will give publicity to it. The speech of the hon. Member for Central Newcastle is one which, had it been delivered at a normal hour, would have received the publicity which it deserves, and that is the case we are making. It is exactly the point which we are insisting upon, quite as much to our own inconvenience as to that of any other hon. Member of the House. It is a point which we, within the limits of what we ought to do as House of Commons men, are determined to insist upon, and that is that these Measures, however desirable they may be, should be debated. I hope any other hon. Member who can give a valuable contribution to the Debate in a concise form will do so.

Mr. HOLMES: The hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Sir G. Renwick) has made a very fair defence of the Bill, but surely it would be better to settle various points which are before the House than to defer them to the Committee stage. There is one Clause in the Bill in regard to which I should like to have an explanation, and that is the Cause which says:
The expression master of a vessel means the person named as the master in the agreement with the crew.
When I first read that it appeared to me to be pure Bolshevism. Surely the master of a vessel should be a person in the employment of the owner, and not a person in agreement with the. crew. If the Colonial Secretary, who has now left us, were here, he might have explained what that Sub-section (3) of Clause 4 means, especially in view of the fact that in Clause 8 it says:
The expression 'muster' when used in relation to any vessel means the person having the command or charge of the vessel for the time being—
Yet in Clause 4 it says the master must be in agreement with the crew.

Sir G. RENWICK: Read Clause 4.

Mr. HOLMES: I will. It says:
The expression 'muster of a vessel' means the person named as the master in the agreement with the crew.

Sir G. RENWICK: "In the agreement"—not in agreement.

Mr. HOLMES: Yes, I see. [Laughter.] I am delighted to have provoked laughter at 12.19 a.m. from the Coalition Benches. What happens if the master "for the time being," mentioned in Clause 8, is not the master "in the agreement with the crew," mentioned in Clause 4? That is the point which I am sorry the Colonial Secretary is not now here to explain to the House, because surely the master who is in the agreement with the crew must be a Bolshevist master, and if he is not, there is no one better fitted in this House to explain it, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will pardon me for Haying so, than the Colonial Secretary, because we regard him as an expert so far as anti-Bolshevism is concerned. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will perhaps be able to explain if the Colonial Secretary does not come, for we regard him also as an expert.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I dissent entirely from the view of the Parliamentary Secretary that there should be no Second Beading discussion and that we should leave these maters to be dealt with in Committee. If so they might not be dealt with at all. I have been able to-night to hand in at the Table a couple of Amendments to previous Bills both of which have been accepted by the Government, and if a Second Reading had not taken place these points would not have been noticed and these valuable Amend ments to the Bill would not have been made. I wish to emphasise two points of importance in (his Bill. The first is that the Bill may be very nearly a dead letter

unless some agreement is come to with the countries adjacent to us, France, Germany, the Scandinavian countries and so on, and I would ask those in charge of the Bill to attend to this matter at the earliest possible moment. There is one other matter. I have the honour to represent a fishing constituency in Scotland. I have had considerable experience of the difficulties entailed by prosecutions even without the three-mile limit. My hon. Friend knows well it is extremely difficult to prove whether or not a trawler has been trawling within the three-mile limit. In many cases prosecutions have been entered upon, convictions obtained, and penalties imposed which afterwards have been found not to be justified by the facts. How is it proposed to carry out the inspection in English waters, harbours, and the sea? How is it proposed to prove that in a particular instance of a mile or two in the outer seas a ship, particularly a large ship, was discharging oil? In the case of a large merchantman the fine of £50 might not affect the captain or owner one way or another, but that fine, if imposed upon the master of a trawler—for trawlers are using oil—and where it was not justified by the facts it would be a very serious matter indeed. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some information.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."—[Mr. Holmes.]

The House divided: Ayes, 16; Noes, 98.

Division No. 208.]
AYES.
[12.26 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Maclean, Rt. Hn, Sir D. (Midlothian)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough, E.)


Foot, Isaac
O'Grady, Captain James



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Rendall, Athelstan
Mr. Hogge and Mr. Holmes.


Hayday, Arthur




NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Borwick, Major G. O.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)


Atkey, A. R.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Breese, Major Charles E.
Doyle, N. Grattan


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, Major D. C.
Edge, Captain Sir William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Barlow, Sir Montague
Bruton, Sir James
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Barnston, Major Harry
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Evans, Ernest


Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Casey, T. W.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Fildes, Henry


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Forrest, Walter
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford).


France, Gerald Ashburner
Lort-Williams, J.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Manville, Edward
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Frece, Sir Walter de
Mason, Robert
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mond, Rt, Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col J. T. C.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel Sir John
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Stanton, Charles Butt


Goff, Sir R. Park
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Sugden, W. H.


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Murchison, C. K.
Sutherland, Sir William


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Greer, Sir Harry
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Parker, James
Waring, Major Walter


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Harmsworth, C, B. (Bedford, Luton)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Windsor, Viscount


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Wise, Frederick


Hinds, John
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Hood, Sir Joseph
Remer, J. R.



Hopkins, John W. W.
Renwick, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Moseley)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Houfton, John Plowright
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Dudley Ward.


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (PAYMENT OF CALLS) BILL.

Order for Third Heading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. ADAMSON: There are several things in connection with the Bill that I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister in charge. I do not raise any serious objection to the objects of the Bill. In connection with the Anglo-Persian Company, the investment the Government has made is very good. It is one of the very few investments which the Government have made that has turned out successfully; but there are several considerations that I would like to discuss with the Minister. We had some of them discussed in Committee upstairs, but the Minister on that occasion did not see fit to give any of the safeguards that were asked. With regard to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, the House should realise that we hold the controlling interest and consequently we ought to be able to control the policy and the operations of the company. It is perfectly true that we have two directors who sit on the directorate, but there are certain features of the company's work with which these directors of ours do not interfere. I understand from explanations that have been made previously in connection with our interest in this company that, so far as the commercial side is concerned, that is left severely alone
by our two representatives on the directorate. It is left almost entirely to the other directors appointed by the other interests in this company. To my mind that is not business. It simply leads to this position: that while the people of this country are finding the bulk of the money invested in this Anglo-Persian Oil Company, the concern is run by others who dictate the policy and the operations of the company. Having the controlling interest of the company, the House ought to see that the money is used under proper conditions.
The second consideration I want to put to the Minister in charge is that we ought to use the controlling interest we hold in the concern to prevent the Anglo-Persian Oil Company from entering into agreement with any company for the purpose of keeping up the price of oil. British industry, in the past two years particularly, has had a terrific struggle to live. We have had, again and again, statements made by business men in this House of the difficulties under which British industry is being run. No one will deny that the use of oil enters more and more into industry every day that we live, and there is no doubt but that the high price of oil adds to the burden of industry, and the price of oil undoubtedly has been kept up by these big combines.

Mr. SPEAKER: I really do not see how this arises on the Rill under consideration. This is purely for the payment of certain calls on the shares. It would have been very proper under the original Bill, but I do not think it now arises.

Mr. ADAMSON: With all deference, I am only commenting on what is in the
Bill. One other point I should like to put is this: We hold the controlling interest in this company, and in connection with the call that is being made we shall pay the preponderating proportion of it. Surely, when a call of that kind is being made upon us, we are entitled to review the conditions under which the money is to be used.

Mr. SPEAKER: I fear the right hon. Gentleman has not exactly appreciated the position. We entered into the obligation when the original Bill was passed, and this Bill is merely to fulfil that obligation.

Mr. ADAMSON: I had almost finished, as far as the second consideration goes. I now want to put my third consideration, and I hope I may be more fortunate than I was with regard to the second. The third consideration is also put with the object of helping British industry. We on this side of the House are sometimes blamed for having no interest in industry. We are blamed sometimes for doing all sorts of things to cripple industry. We claim, however, to be quite as much interested in seeing British industry conducted under fair and proper conditions as any other section of the House, and in the point I am now putting we are showing our keen interest in having as few burdens as possible laid on it. Under present conditions industry needs to have every possible burden removed: it requires to be stimulated and nursed as much as possible. What I am going to suggest to the Minister, in the third consideration I wish to lay before him, is that none of the money we are voting to-night ought to be used by this company or by subsidiary companies for building vessels in yards that are not British yards and for ships that are not registered as British ships.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think this raises just the same point as the other considerations. Clearly this is an obligation into which we entered on the original Bill, and it is not open to review on this Bill.

Mr. ADAMSON: I bow to your ruling, but I would have liked to be able to amplify the last consideration, because I think the House will agree with me when I say that many Members still present are very much interested in work being kept for our own men and our own yards. That is the point I was putting, but I do not
want to come into conflict with your ruling, Sir. I have now only to thank the House for the courtesy which they have extended to me and you, Mr. Speaker, for your kindness in letting me get in the points I have put. All I want to say, in conclusion, is that I hope the Minister will take note of the three considerations. [Laughter.] I mean that seriously. I have not been able to amplify them as I would have liked to do, but I think the hon. Gentleman appreciates the three points, and I hope this is a matter which will be discussed by his representative on the directorate of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The nation's money ought not to be used in the way in which it is being used in connection with that company without the nation, through its directors, taking proper control, and seeing that the company is run in a way that will not conflict with the general interests of British industry.

Sir J. BAIRD rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can be allowed to reply. If the subjects raised in the speech were out of order, it is out of order to reply.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am sure that several of the remarks of my right hon. Friend were in order and the Minister evidently deems that an answer is required to the speech, and I do suggest that that portion of my right hon. Friend's speech which was in order might be replied to.

Mr. SPEAKER: I will listen to the Minister if he has anything to say.

Sir J. BAIRD: I think in fairness to the Company it should be said that they have under consideration proposals to spend over £1,000,000 on the purchase of plant and other materials.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in discussing a matter of this sort on the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am giving the hon. Baronet the same chance as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife (Mr. Adamson) had.

Sir J. BAIRD: They are also spending over £2,000,000 on the purchase of ships. When people complain in this way of a concern in which a large amount of money is invested, I think it only right that this should be known. More than that: recently my right hon. Friend the President
of the Board of Trade was at the opening of their factory at Swansea, where 1,000,000 tons of oil is dealt with per annum, and 1,500 people are employed. It is only fair to refer to these points in connection with what was raised by the right hon. Gentleman and what, I think, you agree was in order.

BRITISH NATIONALITY (MARRIED WOMEN) BILL (SELECT COMMITTEE).

Mr. Adamson, Sir John Butcher, Major Cope, Mr. James Gardiner, Major Hills, Mr. Morgan Jones, Mr. Murchison, Mr.
Alexander Shaw, and Mrs. Wintringham nominated Members of the Select Committee.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

Ordered, That Four be the quorum.— [Colonel Gibbs.]

The remaining Orders ware read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Right Minutes before One o'Clock.